Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair,

NEW WRIT

For the county of Stafford (Lichfield division), in the room of James Alexander Lovat-Fraser, Esquire, deceased.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bradford Extension Bill,

To be read the Third time on Tuesday. 26th April.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Tuesday, 26th April.

Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TROLLEY VEHICLE UNDER-TAKINGS.

Return ordered,
of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for traffic, and the number of cars owned at the 31st day of December, 1937, in respect of companies, and the end of the financial year 1937–38, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts and appropriations, the transactions in reserve funds, and traffic and operating statistics for the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively (in continuation of Return to an Order of the House, dated the 5th day of May, 1937); also similar particulars relating to Trolley Vehicle Undertakings.—[Captain A. Hudson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAYS WITH PAY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received the report of the Holidays with Pay Committee; and whether he will make a statement to the House?

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to receive the report of the Holidays with Pay Committee?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have just received the report of this committee which is unanimous. I hope to be able to publish the report soon after the House resumes after Easter.

Mr. Robinson: Can the Minister say when we may expect a decision by the Government on the report, and whether the report makes adequate provision for the staggering of holidays?

Mr. Brown: I cannot say that, as I have only just received the report. I assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Mander: Will there be legislation before the House before the holidays?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENENFIT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many employers of labour have decided to pay bonuses for children of their employés, in some cases 5s. per week for children under 14 years of age; and whether the bonuses will be assessed when applying for convenanted benefit?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that some employers have adopted arrangements under which allowances are paid, subject to certain conditions, to employés with more than a stated number of children. The question whether allowances under a particular arrangement affect the recipients' title to unemployment benefit during periods of short-time working depends


upon the terms and conditions of the scheme and is one for the independent statutory authorities.

SOUTH WALES (NEW FACTORIES).

Mr. George Hall: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of new works established in South Wales by the Government and private enterprise during the past five years; and whether there is any promise of other works in the near future;
(2) whether, in view of the still high percentage of unemployment in South Wales, with the present falling off of trade in the coalfields, the Government are considering the setting up of more new industries in that area?

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are considering the establishment of additional works in South Wales; and, if so, whether particular consideration will be given to the claims of Merthyr Tydfil?

Mr. E. Brown: Nine factories or other establishments have been, or are being, erected, by or on behalf of the Government in South Wales, in connection with the rearmament programme, and it has been decided to establish two further munitions factories, one in Merthyr Tydfil and the other in the Pembrey area. Between 1933–37, inclusive, 20 new works and seven extensions to existing works were opened by private enterprise. These include two factories which were erected on the Treforest Trading Estate. Since the end of 1937 five further factories have been completed and at the present moment 23 are in course of construction or planned to meet definite requirements on the Trading Estate and elsewhere under facilities available through the commissioner. I have no information about factories erected entirely by private enterprise since the end of 1937.

Mr. Hall: Arising out of that statement, which will be much appreciated in the districts where the new factories are to be established, can the right hon. Gentleman inform us of the nature of the works there and the probable number of men who will be employed?

Mr. Brown: I cannot give the probable number of men, but the factory at Merthyr Tydfil will be somewhat similar to the one being erected at Mossend in Lanarkshire, and the one at Pembrey is

in addition to the T.N.T. factory already established there.

Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet representatives from the areas concerned and Members of Parliament, so that other details can be given to them after the holidays?

Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that after the holidays.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Pembrey factory which has now been announced be in addition to the factory which was announced six weeks ago?

Mr. Brown: Yes, this is another one.

Mr. Wise: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very real appreciation felt on all sides for this step towards the rehabilitation of South Wales, and will he take note of the hope that it is only the forerunner of many others?

Mr. Brown: I am sure the House feels as I do about this.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. G. Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the heavy cuts now taking place in the allowance of a large number of unemployed persons in Glamorgan owing to the liquidation of the standstill Order; and will he take steps to prevent further reductions being applied in the future?

Mr. E. Brown: These reductions are being made under the Statutory Regulations providing for the transition from the "standstill," in accordance with the recommendations of the local advisory committee. The period allowed under the Regulations for the completion of the transition expires on 15th May. The transition is already practically complete in most other areas of the country and applicants in Glamorganshire have had the advantage of a programme of adjustments spread over the maximum period possible under the law. It is always open to an aggrieved applicant to exercise his right to appeal to the appeals tribunal, but the matter is not one in which I have any authority to interfere.

Mr. Hall: Notwithstanding the fact that it is in accordance with the "standstill," the cuts are very drastic and are causing no end of suffering to these applicants, and will the right hon. Gentleman recon-


sider the cut from 17s. to l0s. a week for any person over 21 years of age living at home?

Mr. Brown: The House decided that when the Regulations were passed.

Mr. David Grenfell: If the reasons that were held to justify the extension of the adjustment period no longer hold, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider extending this condition and giving more generous allowances to people who have been so long unemployed and who are in very distressed circumstances?

Mr. Brown: That is not our opinion at the moment.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a communication from the Fifeshire District Council of the National Unemployed Workers' movement requesting the attendance of the area officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board at a meeting to be held in Cowdenbeath, on Wednesday, 4th May, for the discussion of matters relating to the Unemployment Assistance Board's administration; and whether the area officers have been asked to attend the conference?

Mr. Brown: I understand that the Unemployed Workers' Movement have communicated to the district officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board their intention of taking a deputation to the Board's area office at Cowdenbeath on 4th May. The action to be taken on the communication rests with the Board.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not possible for the Minister to recommend the Board to give favourable consideration to this?

Mr. Brown: That is a question which in their discretion they will judge in the circumstances of the case.

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of skilled engineers who have applied for employment in several aircraft factories have been refused employment owing to lack of orders, and that others desire employment in aircraft factories but have been informed that they are not required; and, in view of the national needs, what steps are being taken to deal with this?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. I am not aware of such cases. Any skilled engineer who is unemployed can be put in touch at once with aircraft work or other work on the Defence programme through any Employment Exchange.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister for the Coordination of Defence, who has received examples and illustrations of such abuses?

Mr. Brown: I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. E. Smith: If the Minister's attention is drawn to some correspondence on this subject which has been received by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself, will he consider it? Moreover, will he bear in mind that while these consultations are taking place, the aircraft industry could easily double its output with the labour available?

Mr. Brown: I should be very glad to look at any correspondence which the hon. Member may show me. As he knows, we are having discussions about this matter now.

Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman be sending any of these workers to America?

TINPLATE AND STEEL-SHEET INDUSTRIES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the percentage of unemployment in the tinplate and steel-sheet industries is as high as 35 per cent., and is 20 per cent. higher than a year ago; and whether he is taking any steps to deal with the depression in these industries?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the facts referred to by the hon. Member. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to him on 28th February by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern in West Wales about this matter, and that every local authority there has expressed concern as to what may happen in the area in view of the fact that industry there is at present producing only about 45 per cent. of its capacity?

Mr. Brown: I am well aware of that, and I have agreed to see a deputation from West Wales shortly after Easter.

SALFORD.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in Salford 40 per cent. of the unemployed on the register at the Employment Exchange are over the age of 45 years; can he give the percentage for the whole of the country; and will he indicate to the House what measures the Government intend to take to see that employers share the responsibility of finding work for them?

Mr. E. Brown: The proportion of the unemployed men over the age of 45 in Salford is 39 per cent. The corresponding proportion for the country as a whole is 40.9 per cent. In reply to the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 7th April.

Mr. Tinker: In view of the tragedies that arise in these cases, cannot the Government get a move on and do something more for these people?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will look at last month's communiqué and the one before, he will discover that those who have been out of employment for more than 12 months are decreasing in numbers. We are doing everything possible to get jobs for the maximum number of these unemployed men.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the administrative costs of the Unemployment Fund (Agricultural Account) during the past year amounted to £245,016, while unemployment benefit distributed only amounted to £455,000; why the cost of administration of this fund is so high; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce these expenses?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 17th February to the Hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend say that the ratio of expenses to benefits will be considerably reduced in the current year?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend will study the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Hallam, he will discover that as a matter of fact the arrangement made whereby not more than one-eighth of the income is used in administration as recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, and he will also find out that there was a period of six months to begin with when discussions were in progress during which no payments were being made, but the work had to be carried on.

TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of trade boards that are in operation at the present time; and whether any of these have been set up during the past two years?

Mr. E. Brown: There are at present 47 trade boards. None have been set up during the past two years.

Mr. Day: Does the Minister propose to set up any more of these trade boards in the near future?

Mr. Brown: Notice was given on 1st April of our intention to apply the Act to the baking trade, and proposals are under active discussion with the employers' and workers' associations concerned.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the cinematograph trade?

Mr. Brown: At the moment I am analysing the evidence I have received about that.

GUILD OF INSURANCE OFFICIALS.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet considered the facts brought to his notice concerning the refusal of the Lloyd's brokers, Leslie and Godwin, to allow members of their staff to join the Guild of Insurance Officials; whether he has taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown regarding the legality of the methods of intimidation adopted by that firm to compel their employés to discontinue membership of their organisation; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: My Department has been in communication with Messrs. Leslie and Godwin and has been informed that they have no objection to any member of their staff being a member of the Guild of Insurance Officials.

Mr. Lathan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that each member of the staff was required, after an interview with the departmental heads, to sign a form of resignation the terms of which had been previously determined or suggested, and in these circumstances cannot he take action to persuade the firm to announce that these documents are null and void?

Mr. Brown: I have received letters from a large number of Members. I have sent them a written reply, but as it is rather long, perhaps the House will allow me to circulate a copy of the letter so that the whole House will be informed on the subject.

Mr. Lathan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that copies of those documents have already been circulated to Members of the House and that the facts to which I have drawn attention are mentioned there?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the letter when I circulate it, and put any further question about it that he may desire to put after Easter.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with his information, and is he prepared to interview the employés with a view to having their side of the matter considered?

Mr. Brown: We are always pleased to see them.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that the firm in question have not been very candid and that initially they called upon their employés to resign from the union on pain of dismissal, but that subsequently they repudiated their own action; and have they not given my right hon. Friend information with regard to the dispute which was in fact inaccurate?

Mr. Brown: I could not accept that. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to prove that, I shall be glad to go into it. I have given the information as supplied to me by the firm.

Following is the copy of the letter:

Dear Crowder,

On 12th April you wrote to me about a dispute between Messrs. Leslie & Goodwin, Limited, and the Guild of Insurance Officials. Following representations to my Department by the Guild, the matter has been discussed with directors of the company.

As regards the allegation that employés of the company were given the alternative of resigning from membership of the Guild or of leaving the employment of the company, the directors stated that this is untrue. They made it clear to the Department that they have no objection to any member of the staff being a member of the Guild and that there was no question of any member of the staff being dismissed as had been suggested. They take exception, however, to the claim of the Guild to represent their staff as a whole. In an interview between the Assistant Secretary of the company and the General Secretary of the Guild it was indicated that, while the welfare of the staff had always had their most sympathetic consideration, they were not, as an individual private firm, prepared to enter into negotiation with the Guild on the subject of the salaries and conditions of their staff generally.

I have no power to compel an employer to recognise any particular organisation for the purpose of settling the conditions of employés and in this connection, therefore, I can take no further action. The company, however, has indicated that they are prepared to consider any cases in which it may be suggested to the Department that the conditions of employment are not satisfactory, and the Department is in communication with the Guild accordingly.

(Signed) ERNEST BROWN.

John E. Crowder, Esq., M.P.,

House of Commons,

S.W.I.

BRITISH SOMALIS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Somalis from British Somaliland are compelled, when visiting this country, to register as aliens and report to the police?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Natives of the Somaliland Protectorate, in common with natives of all other British Protectorates, are not British subjects as defined in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. Their status is that of British protected persons, and they are accordingly subject to the provisions of the Aliens Order, 1920, and, if seamen, to the provisions of the Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order, 1925.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of this anomaly with regard to protected subjects, will the Minister see that the passport system is abolished altogether and that these people are given their normal rights as British subjects?

Mr. Lloyd: It must be remembered that these people are aliens under Statute but great efforts are made to deal with them as well as possible.

Mr. Ammon: Are not the Government getting it both ways, as these people were compulsorily conscripted for the War, and we have a British Governor-General in British Somaliland and have recently established judicial machinery?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

POLITICAL PROCESSIONS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary whether, in districts wherein Communist processions are banned, this ban is held to include the participation of Communist contingents in processions organised by Socialist societies; and whether any instructions have been issued to this effect?

Mr. Lloyd: In the Metropolitan Police District, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, no order has been made under Section 3 (3) of the Public Order Act, 1936, prohibiting Communist processions as such. The order now in force prohibits, in the area in East London to which it applies, the holding of all public processions of a political character.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary whether the Commissioner of Police in the last 12 months has had to exercise, his powers under the Public Order Act to ban Communist and Fascist processions, respectively, in any part of London; and, if so, will he give the districts and the total duration of the ban in each district?

Mr. Lloyd: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has not taken any action to ban Communist or Fascist processions as such: but on five occasions he has, with my right hon. Friend's consent, made an order under Section 3 (3) of the Public Order Act, 1936, prohibiting the holding of all public processions of a

political character in an area in East London comprising the boroughs of Bethnal Green, Poplar, Shoreditch, and Stepney and parts of Hackney and Islington. These orders have been in operation since 21st June last, and the latest order will expire on 13th June next. No such order has been made prohibiting public processions in any other part of the Metropolitan Police district.

Mr. Wise: Would it be possible to extend that order to Westminster and Kensington as well?

Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an application was made to his Department for a procession to march in the East End of London through Commercial Road to the Embankment, and that it was prohibited, although it was only a civil procession?

METROPOLITAN POLICE (SENIOR OFFICERS' RESIGNATIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make regarding the several resignations recently tendered by senior officers of the Metropolitan Police; and will he state the reasons given for these resignations?

Mr. Lloyd: Out of eight senior officers of the Metropolitan Police Force who have recently given notice of resignation, two wished to take up posts outside the force and five are retiring on pension in the normal course. The other resignation is apparently consequent upon an appointment which the Commissioner had decided to make.

Mr. Day: Is this not the largest batch of resignations on record in such a short time?

Mr. Lloyd: These two officers who are taking up outside appointments are taking up air-raid precautions work.

ELECTRIC CABLE ACCIDENT, BANBURY.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary the cause of the accident at the Northern Aluminium Works, Banbury, Oxfordshire, on Thursday last, when a worker was electrocuted?

Mr. Lloyd: A report which I have received shows that the accident was


caused by the trapping of a temporary electric cable between the wheel of an overhead crane and its track. The insulation of the cable was destroyed, and the crane and its appliances made alive. The action to be taken on the report is under consideration.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether any special air-raid precautions fire-fighting equipment has yet been distributed to local authorities, and when he anticipates this distribution will be complete?

Mr. Lloyd: Over 150 fire pumps, mostly of the larger and heavier types, have been issued to fire brigades for use in connection with their emergency measures. About 600 more machines of these types have been ordered, together with about 3,000 light trailer pumps. It is hoped that most of these machines will have been delivered by the end of this year. It is not possible to say, at present, how many additional machines may be required.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether any embargo is being placed by his Department on the construction of air-raid shelters until the surveys have been completed and a complete scheme planned and approved?

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether, pending the results of the surveys to be conducted into the need for air-raid shelters by local authorities, he will consider the advisability of initiating work forthwith upon the construction of some shelters in those areas in which it is clear that some shelters will be needed?

Mr. Lloyd: No definite practice of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has been laid down. I think, however, that as indicated in the circular of 28th March it is to be preferred that surveys should be carried out before the question of special construction is considered.

Mr. Mabane: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that where new buildings are being erected in particular areas, his Department will raise no objection to air-raid shelters being included if the expenditure is not excessive, and will such expenditure be eligible for grant?

Mr. Lloyd: It will depend upon whether they fit in with the scheme of the local authority in the light of their survey.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that delay in making provision for travelling expenses of air-raid precautions volunteers is being excused by local authorities on the ground that Home Office approval is still being awaited; whether there is any justification for this excuse; and whether an immediate instruction will be sent to all local authorities to make the necessary provision forthwith?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend does not consider that any general instruction is necessary, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me know, I will make inquiries.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to issue the householder's handbook generally to all householders?

Mr. Lloyd: As stated in the answer given on 3rd February to a question by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), the present distribution of the book to local authorities was made in order to decide in what form printed advice to each householder could most effectively be given and how and when it should be distributed. The copies asked for by local authorities, totalling some 700,000 in all, were in the main distributed last month. My right hon. Friend does not think the time has yet come when he can properly invite them to let him have their considered views. Meanwhile the book is available for air-raid wardens and others to use in giving advice to householders and the general public.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to issue the structural handbook relating to air-raid precautions?

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Home Secretary how soon it is proposed to issue, as promised, notes indicating the standards of construction which are regarded as desirable from the point of view of air-raid protection; and whether he is satisfied that this will be sufficient without legislation to enforce their observance?

Mr. Lloyd: Guidance on structural measures will be issued in the near future,


though I am not in a position at the moment to give a precise date. I am glad to say that the leading architectural and engineering bodies are prepared to collaborate in disseminating technical advice on this matter, and it would be premature at this stage to express any definite opinion on the need for legislation.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unofficially these expert bodies have for the past 12 months been advising their own people on these questions, and that matters are technically well in hand as between the technical authorities and their advisers?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I think that these bodies have been doing very valuable work indeed.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary what system at present exists for rapidly warning the population of London of the approach of an air raid?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is about to issue a circular to local authorities generally regarding the means of giving public air-raid warnings in towns. Special consideration is being given to the arrangements required in London, in most parts of which special instruments will have to be installed.

Mr. Sandys: Will my hon. Friend answer the question as to the system which at present exists? Surely some system exists at the moment?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we have been carrying out experiments to find the best instruments for this purpose. There are a good many technical difficulties, but in an emergency the system of maroon warnings could be applied at short notice.

Mr. Sandys: Do the local authorities and the public know about this system?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think there would be any difficulty in making such a system known at short notice if necessary.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Gentleman is sending out a circular on the method of warning, will he also send a statement to hon. Members showing the system that will operate for evacuation?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Home Secretary by what method it is proposed that air-raid wardens should

communicate to the appropriate authorities regarding the bombs which may have fallen or casualties which may have occurred in the streets for which they are responsible and, if by telephone, whether a system of priority calls has been arranged?

Mr. Lloyd: It is proposed that air-raid wardens should make their reports by telephone where possible. For this purpose a system of priority calls should not be necessary, seeing that in most cases the call would be simply by the warden's line to the exchange and from the exchange to the report centre by direct line, without the use of junction lines between exchanges. The warden would control the availability of the line from him to the exchange and it is intended that report centres should have sufficient lines to carry the probable number of incoming calls. I would also point out that where there is automatic telephone working no system of priority calls is possible. As air raids would in any case impose a heavy burden on the telephone system, it will have to be an instruction to the public to avoid using the telephone during and immediately after a raid for any but vitally urgent calls.

Mr. Sandys: Are the Telephone lines being laid yet?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we are carrying out extensive experiments in some of the air-raid precautions exercises to test the actual working of the scheme.

Mr. Wise: Are all these lines laid underground?

Mr. Lloyd: Some of them are.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not a fact that there is no effective air-raid precautions organisation and that the local authorities are continually going backwards and forwards but get no proper information from the Home Office?

Mr. Lloyd: That is quite untrue. The organisation of air-raid precautions is making great progress all over the country.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not a fact that the book which the Home Office has issued has most of the pages blank, indicating that later information will be supplied?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means when he refers to a book, because the Home Office has


been issuing a series of elaborate and technical instructions.

Mr. Bull: asked the Home Secretary in what manner the services of doctors are being enlisted for duty in connection with air raids; and whether those who have offered their services for this work have been allocated to specific districts?

Mr. Lloyd: Doctors will be required in connection with air-raid precautions primarily for supplementing hospital staffs, and my right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the whole question of hospital provision. In the meantime the scheme for the training of doctors in anti-gas measures is proceeding steadily.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Home Secretary whether the contemplated survey of air-raid shelter accommodation is to include accommodation in private houses for the use of their occupants; and whether it is intended that local authorities shall provide special shelters for all those for whom existing shelters are not available?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) on 7th April.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: asked the Home Secretary whether he notified the local authorities of his intention to make a broadcast appeal for air-raid volunteers on 14th March, and, if so, when?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's intention was published in the Press in advance of the broadcast, but no formal communication was made to the local authorities.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary how many local authorities have completed schemes for the evacuation in case of war of school children from dangerous to less dangerous areas, in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Board of Education's Circular 1461; and which authorities have been informed by the Home Office that their area is ranked as dangerous?

Mr. Lloyd: The question of the most appropriate means of providing protection for school children, whether by

evacuation or by other means, is being closely examined in the light of local circumstances by all those concerned. Advice is being made available by the Department as required in order that proper decisions may be taken.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that in this circular local authorities have been told that in dangerous areas they will have to prepare schemes, and how are the local authorities to know which areas are to be regarded as dangerous?

Mr. Lloyd: The whole question of evacuation is now being considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sandys: Does that mean that this circular will have no effect until another circular comes out explaining it?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that, while certain plans can be made by local authorities, my hon. Friend is right in thinking that no definite steps can be taken until my right hon. Friend has considered the matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do we understand that no areas have been warned that they may be dangerous areas?

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to send a proportion of hospital patients from the more vulnerable areas to other parts of the country; and, if so, what arrangements have been made in the case of London?

Mr. Lloyd: This is one of the matters in connection with hospitals generally about which my right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Sandys: Have no arrangements yet been made in London?

Mr. Lloyd: I informed the House yesterday that we hope the survey of London will be completed in the next few weeks.

Mr. Sandys: But no definite arrangements have yet been made?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hospital accommodation in provincial towns is already overtaxed, and that if anything is to be done in this matter serious attention should be given to that fact?

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Sheffield Corporation Rating Committee, in reply to a question by property owners, has intimated that any shelters for air-raid protection would automatically increase the value of the property; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent assessments being increased in respect of the construction of shelters?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am making inquiries as to the case mentioned.

HYDE PARK MEETING.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the Chief Commissioner of Police as to the estimated number of persons present at the meeting in Hyde Park on Sunday, l0th April?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The Commissioner of Police estimates that about 3,000 people were present when the meeting began at 3.30 p.m., and that by 5 p.m. about 7,000 people were present.

Mr. Samuel: Did my hon. Friend see the report in the "Daily Herald" that 120,000 were present?

GERMAN NATIONALS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make with reference to the proposed application by the German Government of the German Registration Act of 3rd February, 1938, to Germans and former Austrians in this country; whether, so far as the British Government is concerned, such persons are free to take whatever action they think fit as regards registration; and whether the German plan is in accordance with the usual international practice?

Mr. Lloyd: The effect of the new German law to which the hon. Member refers is that every German national residing for longer than three months in the district of the same German Consulate is under an obligation to report to that Consulate, and to keep the Consulate informed of every change in his personal status and every change of address within the district. I believe that other States

encourage their nationals while abroad to register with their local Consul, but it is, I think, unusual for them to require such detailed particulars. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, individual aliens who are resident in this country and are affected by the new law are entirely free to choose whether or not they will comply with its requirements.

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that the questions that are being asked at the German Consulate are of a very searching nature, and that considerable apprehension exists among Germans over here? Will he make it clear that German aliens in this country are subject to British, and not German law?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend made that clear the other day.

Mr. Leach: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we are now in a position to take from Germany some of her finest citizens?

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Logan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Liverpool City Council, of 6th April, not to make grants to non-provided schools; has the council sent in schemes to meet the requirements of the Education Act, 1936; is he aware that a suggested scheme to build council schools to meet the full demands under the Acts will be most expensive to the ratepayers and, if built, will not be used by the denominational bodies; and, in view of the costly expenditure in this city on council schools and the necessity for modern non-provided schools, what action does he intend to take to see that the provisions of the Education Act, 1936, are put into operation in Liverpool?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The Board have been informed by the Liverpool local education authority that they have decided to make no grants towards the provision of new or the enlargement of existing non-provided schools and that they have instructed the education committee to take all steps necessary


to provide such additional school accommodation as may be required to comply with the provisions of the Education Acts. My Noble Friend is aware that the provision of council schools will involve the authority in heavier expenditure than would have resulted from the exercise of their powers to make grants under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1936, and is likely to give rise to other difficulties. But as the hon. Member has already been informed, the Board are not in a position to compel the authority to make grants for non-provided schools. They are, however, in a position to require the authority to carry out the duty imposed upon them by Section 17 of the Education Act, 1921, to provide a sufficient amount of elementary school accommodation, and this they propose to do.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Member not aware that through the Government an agreement was arrived at which was adopted by this House, which was a national compromise unique in the history of the House; and, in view of the possibility that sectarian differences may arise in Liverpool, is it not possible for the grant which is made by the Treasury to be altered and deductions made seeing that the local authority seems to avoid its responsibility in this matter? Is he not also aware that in the past sectarian differences have created great difficulty and that we are anxious to get rid of them and that might be possible if this solution could be applied by the Treasury?

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of some of the points raised by the hon. Member, but such a grant is not permissible under the Education Act. I may add, for my hon. Friend's information, that since we have been informed of the authority's decision my Noble Friend has called upon them for a statement of their alternative proposals. As a member of the education committee he will be aware of that.

Mr. Logan: If I bring the matter up after the Recess will the hon. Member be able to give a further reply?

Mr. Lindsay: Possibly I may have some further information by then.

Mr. Thorne: Can the hon. Gentleman say why there is always trouble in Liverpool when we do not get it in any other part of the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MILK.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the divergence of opinions upon matters of fact that are expressed by various authorities upon bovine tuberculosis, pasteurisation and other matters affecting the supply and consumption of milk, he will appoint a committee to investigate and to report upon these problems?

Sir K. Wood: I am advised that the facts with regard to bovine tuberculosis and pasteurisation in relation to the milk supply are sufficiently well established by inquiries such as that of the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council on Cattle Diseases, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sufficient research has not in fact been done to enable authorities, notably the Ministry of Agriculture, to issue regulations that are not hotly contested by eminent medical and veterinary authorities; and if I bring such information to his notice will he give this matter further consideration, inquiry and action?

Sir K. Wood: I rather gather that my hon. and gallant Friend ought to communicate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Captain Heilgers: Is the Minister going to do anything to discourage biased propaganda on the question of pasteurisation by the medical authorities?

Sir K. Wood: That is a different matter.

Sir A. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that there has been no publication of any of the evidence submitted to the Cattle Disease Committee, which did not apply its mind to the question of human tuberculosis but to cattle diseases, and that there has been no evidence before us except this——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is giving information.

HOPE HOSPITAL, SALFORD.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the economy that is being made in many areas at the cost of poor people, as evidenced in the proposed


action of the Salford City Council in closing down two wards in the Hope Hospital, the issuing of instructions to the doctors not to use certain medicines unless absolutely necessary, and the low allowances made to cover the cost of the maintenance of the nursing staff; and, in view of this, will he take action to improve the financial position of the local authorities, where rates are 15s. or more in the £?

Sir K. Wood: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. My attention, however, has been drawn to a newspaper report which indicates that the Salford City Council have under consideration certain proposals in regard to the Hope Hospital. I am in communication with the Council in the matter, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is student of local affairs and is bound to be aware of the economy which is being made at the expense of the poorest of the poor in the North of England, and, in view of that state of affairs, will he not use the same initiative in dealing with it as he showed in the conduct of affairs when he was at the Post Office?

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health the number of voluntary contributors for national health insurance pensions in England and Wales as at the last convenient date; and the number of applications that have been refused for widows' pensions, including allowances for dependent children, under the Contributory Pensions Acts since the commencement of same, giving the principal reasons for disallowance?

Sir K. Wood: On 31st December, 1937, the number of voluntary contributors in England and Wales under the national health insurance and contributory pensions schemes was approximately 674,300. In the 12 years from the commencement of the scheme to 31st December, 1937, the total number of rejected claims for widows' and orphans' pensions whether in respect of voluntary or compulsory contributors was 207,358, the principal reasons for rejection being that the husband was not insured at death or that 104 contributions had not been paid in respect of his insurance.

Mr. Day: Have there been many objections put forward to these regulations?

Sir K. Wood: That ought to be the subject of another question after the Recess.

CABLE AND WIRELESS AGREEMENT.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Prime Minister when the cable and wireless agreement will be submitted to Parliament for approval; and whether ample time will be given for the consideration of the position of the staffs affected?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Legislation will be required to implement the agreement, and when it is brought forward there will be an opportunity for full discussion to take place. I have no reason to suppose that the agreement will have any adverse effect on the staffs concerned.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of when this legislation is likely to be brought forward?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give any exact date, but I think it will not be long after the Recess.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (COURTESY VISIT, ITALY).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what is the purpose of the approaching visit of the Secretary of State for War to the head of the Italian Government, and what matters will be discussed between them?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has left for Malta to-day, and on his return through Rome will pay a courtesy visit to the head of the Italian Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it the case that this visit really has no political significance whatsoever?

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has it any publicity value?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTED BEER (DUTY).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, since the recent increase of


the duty upon imported lager beer, Danish brewers have borne the duty themselves rather than pass it on to the consumer in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that this action has rendered the increased duty valueless as regards protection for the British producer of lager beer, he will review the matter in connection with his forthcoming Budget?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am aware of the allegation referred to. There are a number of facts to be considered, but, with regard to the second part of the question, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the increase in the number and value of motor cars imported into this country from Germany from 35 cars, to the value of £8,815, in the first two months of 1936, to 2,339 cars, to the value of £200,384, in the first two months of this year; the average import duty levied on these cars; and whether their export to this country is subsidised from any source in Germany?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The rate of duty chargeable on foreign motor cars on importation into this country is 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem. I have heard the opinion expressed that the export of motor cars from Germany to this country is subsidised, but I have no official information on the subject.

Mr. Griffiths: Do not those figures prove either that the export of these cars is subsidised or, considering the price at which they are sold in this country, that British cars are sold at exorbitant prices?

Captain Wallace: If the German Government like to give presents to buyers of motor cars in this country, that system, provided that it is not overdone, is not altogether bad from our point of view.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not now common knowledge that a very large number of exporters to this country are subsidised, and that the subsidies are causing very great inconvenience to many branches of British industry; and cannot

His Majesty's Government decide to take some action?

Captain Wallace: If we find that the subsidy is causing a disturbance we shall have to consider it, but what I said was that we had no official information of that kind.

Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to ascertain what is going on, or is he content to have no information and to do nothing?

Captain Wallace: The Board of Trade take every step they can to obtain information relative to the welfare of British industry.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that German exporters of coal are subsidised to the extent of 7s. per ton, and will not the Government and the Board of Trade consider a matter which is putting a large number of British workers on to the road?

TINPLATE INDUSTRY.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the depression now prevailing in the tinplate industry, as is revealed in the fact that there are 97 less mills operating in the industry at the present time than at the corresponding period of last year, he will give consideration to the possibilities of an extension of the food-canning industry of the country, so as to relieve the depression in the tinplate industry and also assist in the storage of food in preparation for a possible national emergency?

Captain Wallace: I regret that there is at present nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 14th December last.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the heavy increases in the import duties on cotton goods announced by the Egyptian Government on 11th April; whether he has considered the effect of these new impositions upon the cotton trade in Lancashire; and what steps the Government contemplate taking to counteract the effect of these measures upon Lancashire's staple industry?

Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. The increases in question have been brought


to the notice of His Majesty's Government, who are considering the position in consultation with the interests affected.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Minister of Labour so that plans can be got forward for the rehabilitation of Lancashire as well as South Wales, while this process is going on?

Captain Wallace: That is a different question.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether with a view to extending aid to China, as recommended by the Assembly of the League in the resolution of 5th October. 1937, he will facilitate the granting of long-term credits to the Chinese Government so as enable them to maintain effectively their resistance to Japanese aggression?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If in present circumstances the Chinese Government found it possible to obtain long-term credits from British financial institutions, any request for my right hon. Friend's consent to such an operation would be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Prime Minister say whether His Majesty's Government will encourage the financial agencies of this country to grant those credits, in view of the statement made by Dr. Sun Foo, the President of the Chinese Legislative Assembly, only the day before yesterday, that financial aid from other countries would enable China to shorten the war?

The Prime Minister: That appears to be a matter of opinion. As a matter of fact, I think the question is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If necessary, will the Government consider giving Government guarantees for this purpose in pursuance of their obligations under the Covenant of the League?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning an attack by a Japanese soldier at Peking on 7th

April upon a British officer and sergeant arriving from Tientsin?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): This incident is at present under investigation by the local British and Japanese authorities, and I am not in a position to make any definite statement for the moment.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONERS, EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the growing resentment among civil servants generally at the employment by the Govenment in paid posts of men already in receipt of good pensions awarded in non-Civil Service work outside; and whether he will take steps to have this policy changed?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am not aware that any such feeling exists, but if the lion. Member will let me have particulars of any cases which he has in mind, I will see that they are examined.

Mr. Banfield: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really consider the point I make in this question, that it is better to have promotion from the existing ranks rather than to bring in people from outside to fill these vacancies?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any cases which he has in mind I will have them looked into.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General, why an ex-criminal investigation department officer has been appointed as an inspector of doorkeepers at the Post Office; and whether he can state his police pension and his salary as inspector of doorkeepers?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): None of the existing doorkeepers or sergeants of doorkeepers possesses the personality, power of control or organising ability required for the post of inspector. The officer selected for the appointment has been attached to the Post Office Investigation Department for over 15 years, and has shown that he possesses these qualities. He has also an intimate knowledge of the Post Office. He has a police pension of £276 11s. per


annum, and the appointment carries a wage of 80s. per week (rising to 95s.).

Mr. Viant: In view of the large number of men unemployed, is it good policy that a man in receipt of a pension of that extent should have it supplemented by 80s. a week?

Sir W. Womersley: The Appointments Board selected this gentleman as the most suitable candidate for the position that was vacant. As regards policy, I will discuss that with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Has any special examination to be passed before a man becomes an inspector of doorkeepers?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POTATO MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Sea Fish Industry Commission is not permitted to purchase and sell white fish wholesale, he can state whether he has given consideration to the recent action of the Potato Marketing Board in buying and selling potatoes fit for human consumption with a view to similar prohibition?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As I explained in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) on Monday last, the Potato Marketing Board's powers to buy and sell potatoes are limited under their scheme to potatoes which are surplus to the needs of human consumption. I do not think that there is any analogy between the position of the board and that of the commission it is proposed to set up under the Sea Fish Industry Bill.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before the House rises, he can make any statement as to the Government's policy with regard to the poultry industry?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No, Sir. I am afraid that I am not in a position to make a statement to-day.

EGGS.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the average price of eggs produced and sold in this country during the year ended 31st March, 1938, or during the latest year for which figures are available, when the average is weighted for the number of eggs sold at each price?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The necessary information is not available to enable the weighted average price of eggs in general to be calculated. It is estimated, however, that the weighted average price of English National Mark Standard eggs during the year ended 28th February, 1938, the latest period for which information is available, was is. 6¼d. per dozen.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLITERATE PRISONERS.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that about 400 Scotsmen committed to prison during the last 12 months for various offences were unable to read or write; whether he can indicate the districts in Scotland in which the offences mainly took place; and whether he can offer any explanation of the high rate of illiteracy in this class of the population?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The offences in question mainly took place in the southern half of Scotland, although no information is available as to the localities from which the offenders originally came. As regards the last part of the question, the number of illiterate prisoners is 3 per cent. of the total. This compares with a figure of 11 per cent. 25 years ago.

Mr. Kennedy: May I take it that those referred to in the question who go to prison may be regarded as aliens?

Mr. Elliot: I should not like to say that.

Mr. Thorne: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain this state of affairs when Scotland is supposed to have the best educated people in the world?

Mr. Elliot: The percentage of illiteracy in England in 1936 was 2.77 as compared with 2.31 in Scotland.

PUBLIC SERVICES, AUCHTERTOOL, WEST FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the village of Auchtertool, West Fife, water has to be carried from a well in the street; that drainage from houses runs along the open gutter; that paraffin lamps have to be used to provide lighting; that new houses built in the village have been supplied with electric fittings but the Fife Power Company refuses to supply the village with electricity; and will he take steps to see that this village is given the opportunity of enjoying adequate sanitation and lighting?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers in the first four parts of the question. So far as water supply is concerned, the Department of Health are taking up with the county council the question of introducing a supply into such houses as at present depend on street wells. As regards drainage, the village was recently formed into a special district and I understand that the county council have a drainage scheme under consideration. With regard to lighting, I understand that the extension of an electricity supply to the village is estimated to cost £1,800, and that the estimated gross revenue is only £90 to £100. In the circumstances the Fife Electric Power Company with whom the decision in the matter rests, do not see their way to proceed with this extension.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the situation which exists in the village, can the Minister not arrange for one of his representatives to visit it and end this shocking state of affairs?

Mr. Elliot: The matter will be looked into in the usual course of events respecting water and drainage, but lighting is under the Fife Electric Power Company.

Mr. Gallacher: May I point out that current is passing this village in every direction, even to mansion houses in the country, while the Fife Company refuse to put electric light in the village?

Mr. Elliot: I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

PRISON CONDITIONS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention

has been drawn to the experiments in prison reform now being operated in certain English prisons; and whether he will take steps to initiate similar experiments in Scottish prisons?

Mr. Elliot: As regards the first part of the question, the reply is in the affirmative. Many improvements in Scottish prison conditions have been made in recent years, and others are either in process of being introduced or are now being planned. The reclassification of prisoners, which is an essential preliminary to many of these improvements, was begun on 1st April and is now actively in progress. The desirability of assimilating the conditions in Scotland and England as far as possible is constantly borne in mind.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister arrange to visit the camp at Wakefield and consider the possibility of introducing that kind of reform into Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: I recently visited Wakefield, although not actually the camp, and I was interested to hear what progress was being made. I will keep the matter in mind.

HERRING INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Sir Edmund Findlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government have now completed their examination of the position of the herring fishing industry; and, if so, whether they have any statement to make as to their intentions?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make any statement following upon the consideration which the Government have been giving to the condition of the herring fishing industry?

Mr. Elliot: As a result of their examination of the position of the herring industry, the Government propose to ask Parliament to amend and extend the provisions of the Herring Industry Act, 1935. In order to secure a more up-to-date and economical herring fleet, it is proposed, as an emergency scheme, limited to a period of five years, to make grants to herring fishermen in addition to loans which are already available, to assist the construction of large motor herring boats. The annual programme of new motor boats will be adjusted so as not to exceed the reduction in the number of steam drifters. The period during which loans


can be issued under the Act of 1935 for new construction, nets and other purposes, expires on 31t March, 1940 It is proposed to extend the facilities by prolonging this period to 1943. It is also proposed to amend the constitution of the Herring Industry Board by providing that the board shall be composed of three independent members only. In addition there will be an advisory council drawn from the different sections of the industry. The power to make grants towards the administrative expenses of the board and towards their expenses for advertising, market development, research and experiment, expired at 31st March, 1938. It is proposed to renew grants for these purposes on a modified basis, during a period of five years. It is intended to introduce the necessary legislation at an early date.

Mr. Boothby: When shall we have the legislation on this matter?

Mr. Elliot: We propose to introduce it at an early date, but its subsequent course will no doubt depend upon hon. Members in various parts of the House.

Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgent necessity of getting legislation through as soon as possible before the opening of the Autumn season?

Mr. Loftus: Will this also apply to the English herring industry?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly, it is a United Kingdom scheme.

PALESTINE (BRITISH POLICE OFFICERS' DEATHS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement on the death of two British police officers who were killed at Haifa when trying to prevent two bombs from exploding?

Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has received a report from the High Commissioner for Palestine to the effect that on 11th April a British police serjeant and a British constable were killed by the explosion of a bomb which had been placed in a train at Kiryat Haim, near Haifa, and which they were removing, but no further details have been telegraphed.

Mr. Tinker: May I urge the Secretary of State to try to recognise the bravery of these men?

Mr. Bellenger: Apart from any award which might be made to the dependants of the men, will not the Prime Minister ensure that some recognition of their bravery be recommended to His Majesty the King?

The Prime Minister: I could not answer that question without notice.

AIR MAIL (LONDON-BASLE ZURICH).

Mr. Mander: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the £98,000 provided in 1938 for the carriage of British air mails, referred to on page 46 of the Cadman Report, is payment to Imperial Airways, Limited, for the daily service London-Basle-Zurich; how much of this sum Imperial Airways, Limited, pay to Swiss Air for the carriage of the British mail on this route; and why the British company, Alp Air Line, Limited, should not be given the concession to carry this mail and receive this payment instead of the foreign company, in view of the fact that Imperial Airways, Limited, do not operate it themselves?

Sir W. Womersley: I am informed that no part of the sum of £98,000 to which the hon. Member refers represents payments for the carriage of mails. The mail service on the London-Basle-Zurich route is operated under a pooling arrangement between Imperial Airways, Limited, and Swiss Air, but I have no information regarding the amount of any payments made by the one company to the other. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that Alp Air Line is not operating a service to Switzerland, but in any event Imperial Airways are now operating their full share of the pooled services.

Mr. Mander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Alp Air Line have been asking the Air Ministry for two years for permission to fly to Switzerland and carry British mails; and can some answer be given to them?

Sir W. Womersley: I would suggest that the hon. Member might put a question down to the Air Ministry.

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of proposing, with a view to European appeasement, that an exchange of populations should take place between Germany and Czechoslovakia, those Sudetendeutsch who desire to be under German rule leaving Czechoslovakia and those Germans who desire to leave Germany to be permitted to enter Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Are there not very valuaable precedents for this in the experience of the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey which was carried out by the League, and in the recent recommendation in the report of the Palestine Commission?

Mr. Wise: Would the League of International Friendship exchange the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the precedents quoted by the hon. Gentleman, but I have given my answer that we are not prepared to consider the suggestion.

GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (AGREEMENT).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether the agreement resulting from the Anglo-Italian conversations will be initialled or whether it will be signed pending ratification; and on what date?

The Prime Minister: It is hoped that the agreement in question will be signed on Saturday.

SPAIN.

Duchess of Atholl: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that four Italian divisions are in the front line of the insurgent forces which are advancing through Catalonia towards the Mediterranean; that the offensive of which this advance forms part began a week or two after the commencement of negotiations between this country and Italy; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to continue those negotiations?

Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware that a number of Italian troops are reported to be taking part in the present offensive.

But, as regards the condition in which the negotiations with Italy were undertaken, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24th March.

Duchess of Atholl: Did not the Prime Minister say on 24th March that a condition of the negotiations must be that there was no material change in the situation by sending reinforcements, and that he looked to Italy to withdraw troops and arms; and is it not clear that the Italians, by the prominent part they are taking in the advance, are materially affecting the fortunes of the fighting in Spain?

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister's words were that he had never demanded or expected from the Italian Government that they should effect a unilateral withdrawal.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Signor Mussolini has implemented the British formula for the evacuation of foreign troops?

FOREIGN POLICY (NEW ZEALAND).

Mr. A. Henderson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Dominions whether he is aware of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of New Zealand disagreeing with the statement made by him on 12th April, and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Yes, Sir. I have seen the statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand in which he says that an answer which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 12th April does not altogether state the facts. Mr. Savage added "that is, if he has been correctly reported." I have ascertained that the report of my answer which went to New Zealand, and on which Mr. Savage based his statement, was in fact incomplete and incorrect. I have now received a message from Mr. Savage saying that the full report of what I said removes the misunderstanding and makes it clear that my answer was in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Dalton: In order that the House also may understand the position, may I ask whether it is still the case, according


to the right hon. Gentleman, that the New Zealand Government have approved of and are in agreement with the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. MacDonald: I never made any such statement at all.

Mr. Dalton: Is it not clear that that is the general impression conveyed by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago?

Mr. MacDonald: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that Mr. Savage, in his statement yesterday, said that the New Zealand Government had disagreed with certain phases of British policy, will my right hon. Friend say what were the particular points with which they disagreed?

Mr. MacDonald: It would clearly be impossible to make a statement in answer to a supplementary question. I think the House is perfectly well aware of the facts, and has been aware of the facts ever since the New Zealand Government and the other British Commonwealth Governments made their statements regarding the League of Nations as long ago as 1936.

Mr. Mander: As my right hon. Friend says he cannot now, in answer to a question, make a statement, would he be good enough to take some other opportunity after Easter of making the position perfectly clear, in the interests of this country and of New Zealand?

Mr. MacDonald: My answer the other day was clear, and Mr. Savage has agreed that it is in accordance with the facts.

Mr. Grenfell: Is it not also clear from the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has now made that Mr. Savage's statement is equally correct?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not question for one moment the accuracy of his statement. Perhaps I might say to the House that Mr. Savage, in his message to me, indicated that not only the report of what I said, but also the report of what he said, was mutilated in transmission to this country.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the New Zealand Government have disagreed with certain phases of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Savage has made a statement on that matter, and I do not in the least disagree with that statement, but I would point out at the same time that the differences which may occur and have occurred from time to time between New Zealand and this country do not alter the correctness of the statement I made.

Mr. Dalton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to give notice that I or one of my hon. Friends will take an early opportunity of raising this matter when the House resumes.

UNMARRIED WOMEN, PENSIONS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Leach: (by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the members of the committee appointed to examine the question of pensions for spinsters, and also to state the terms of reference?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed a committee with the following terms of reference:
To examine and report on the complaints which are made as to the position of unmarried women under the Contributory Pensions Acts and on the practical questions which would arise if the age at which Old Age Pensions under those Acts are payable to unmarried women were lowered.
The committee will be constituted as follows:

Mr. C. T. Le Quesne, K.C. (Chairman).
Sir John Jeffrey, K.C.B., K.B.E.
Mr. Geoffrey Peto, C.B.E.
Mr. Arthur Shaw, C.B.E., J.P.
Miss Ethel Strudwick, O.B.E.
Dame Gwendoline Trubshaw, D.B.E.

The secretary of the committee will be Mr. W. S. Hocking, M.B.E., of the Government Actuary's Department.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it too late to get an ordinary representative of working-class women put on that committee?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The committee includes Mr. Arthur Shaw, the General Secretary of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be desirable to have on the committee a representative spinster drawn from the ranks of the working class, in order to get a fair judgment?

Mr. E. Smith: Will the Financial Secretary also consider the position of the old age and widows' pensions?

Mr. Mander: Would it be possible to put an undecorated spinster on the committee?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The terms of reference follow, as I have stated, the undertaking that the Government have given, and they could not be enlarged.

Mr. Leach: Is the Financial Secretary satisfied that the terms of reference cover the terms of the Resolution which this House carried a couple of months ago?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tinker: On the point of insured contributors, I think the Motion was carried for all spinsters.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have looked very carefully at the terms of reference, and I think that really they carry out the intention of the House.

PRIVILEGE.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: I wish to raise a question of Privilege. In the "Daily Worker" of Wednesday, 13th April—yesterday—on the front page, under the heading "M.Ps. Barred from Debate on Spain," occurred the following sentences, in leaded type:
The Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday privately notified Opposition leaders that Spain will be 'out of order' in the Debate on the Adjournment of the House of Commons next Thursday.
It goes on:
This disgraceful ruling is based nominally on the allegation that there has been 'too much talk about Spain already.'
I submit that those quotations establish a prima facie case for saying that there has been a gross breach of Privilege. Shall I bring the newspaper to the Table?

Mr. Speaker: My Ruling is that the hon. Member has established a prima facie case of breach of Privilege against this paper. The hon. Member will please bring a copy of the newspaper to the Table.

Mr. Adams: I beg to move,
That the statements complained of contained in the article in the 'Daily Worker' are a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and that the publication of the article is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House.
I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. There are several comments——

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Will you give your Ruling, Sir, as to the procedure? If a prima facie case has been made out, is not the next step to call the editor of this paper before the House?

Mr. Speaker: That step is sometimes taken, but by no means on every occasion. The hon. Member is entitled to make whatever Motion he likes, and it is for the House to decide what action it will take.

Mr. Adams: I propose to trouble the House with only two comments on this passage of which I complain. First, these sentences which have been read out are obviously untrue. Although it may not be known to the political correspondent of the "Daily Worker," every Member of the House is aware that each one of us who has the good fortune to catch your eye, Sir, is entitled, on the Adjournment Motion, to raise almost any question under the sun which does not require legislation. Experience teaches us that we cannot expect undiluted accuracy from the columns of any newspapers. But the important element is that no newspaper has any right to stigmatise your conduct, actual or alleged, as "disgraceful." In my submission, this House alone is entitled to criticise anything that you, in your discretion, may or may not do. I therefore ask the House to agree with me that the "Daily Worker" has been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House.

Mr. Mander: I beg to second the Motion.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps as Leader of the House I ought just to say a word on the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend. Until a few minutes ago, I was not aware that my hon. Friend had any intention of making this Motion, nor had I seen or been aware of the article in question; but I believe that every Member of this House will feel with me that an attack of this kind on you, Sir, is an attack on the House as a whole.


We are quite accustomed in our own persons to be criticised outside the House; we are used to that; but it is another matter altogether when allegations of partiality are made against you, Sir, and I think that the House as a whole will wish to show its indignation when attacks of that kind are made.
As to the question of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), there have been cases in the past when it has been thought necessary to follow up a Motion of this kind by some further expression of the indignation of this House, by summoning the offending party to the Bar of this House. I must say that I rather hope we shall be content, after having accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend, to let the matter rest there. We do not want to magnify the importance of an incident of this kind or of the parties who make such an allegation. I feel myself that there are precedents for the House passing a Motion of this kind and leaving it there, and that that would be the course which would be in the best interests of the dignity and honour of this House.

Mr. Attlee: I should like to associate myself with what the Prime Minister has said. You, Sir, are the guardian of our liberties, and any attack on you is an attack on this House. The statement appears to be entirely baseless, and criticism from any source outside must be resented by this House. I think the Prime Minister, if I may say so, was entirely right in saying that there should not be too much made of this matter, and the House will be best advised to be content with passing this Motion.

Sir Percy Harris: As representing a small minority in the House, may I say that we as minorities, who get special protection from you, Sir, resent any attack on yourself? The smaller the party, we have always found, the greater protection you give us. Needless to say, there is not the slightest vestige of truth in these statements. There is nothing to prevent any hon. Member who is lucky enough to catch your eye raising any subject dealing with the administration or executive work of the Government.

Mr. Gallacher: I have nothing to do with the editorial board of the "Daily Worker," but it seems to me that such a discussion as this would have been much clearer and fairer if the ordinary pro-

cedure had been taken and the responsible editor brought to this House and given an opportunity to reply. It is very unfortunate if any paper, especially such a paper as the "Daily Worker," is provided with wrong information from any source, but I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, to try to appreciate the position of those who are in charge of this paper, closely associated, as they have been, with the particular campaign that has been discussed in this House. We read every day of men being simply battered; their bodies broken, their flesh torn, with the mechanised might of the invaders in Spain; and it is quite possible for people in particular circumstances to be thoroughly justified in putting urgent human needs even before Privilege on particular occasions. This should be taken into consideration. I am quite certain that there was no deliberate sitting down and considering, "Shall we make an insult on Mr. Speaker, or an attack on the House of Commons?" It is an attitude of mind that arises out of the very deep feeling they have for people who are being broken and tortured, and I would suggest that it is quite possible for any Member of this House on particular occasions to feel that human need, urgent human need and human suffering, can overcome the question of Privilege.
So I ask the House not to be so ready to condemn such an action. True, it is unfortunate that they should publish anything that is untrue, and it is something that has always to be reprimanded when untruth is published; but it is quite true that those who are in responsible editorship actually believed that the report they got was true, and in the belief that the basis of the report was true there was a measure of justification for putting, not Privilege first, but the urgent human need of the Spanish people. I have no responsibility of any kind for the editorship of the "Daily Worker," but it would have been much better if those responsible had been brought here, had heard what had to be said and then had been given an opportunity of making a statement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the statements complained of, contained in the article in the 'Daily Worker' are a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and that the publication of the article is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED.

AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL, PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to increase the maximum amount which may be paid annually by way of subsidies under Section one of the Air Navigation Act, 1936; and to make provision with respect to the remuneration and expenses of, and the fees received by, any licensing authority which may be constituted under Section five of that Act," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Colville; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to Solicitors in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith." [Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [Lords].

That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords] do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room, House of Lords, on Tuesday, the l0th of May next, at Eleven o'clock.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 26th April."—[The Prime Minister.]

PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

12.18 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: I wish to draw attention to several questions relating to the provision and administration of pensions, with particular reference to the allowances or non-allowances to disabled ex-service men and their dependants. There has been criticism from time to time that a disproportionate amount of Parliamentary time recently has been devoted to foreign affairs, and there is a complaint that domestic issues have been relegated to the background and have failed to receive the attention they deserve. The circumstances of the hour have, unfortunately, been such that it is inevitable that international affairs have dominated our proceedings to a very considerable extent. We can understand that criticism and we can supply the answer. But it is all the more ironical, when these other discussions presage another war, that the critics feel that we have not liquidated our social liabilities as far as is possible for the last. I say "as far as is possible" advisedly, because we recognise that it is impossible to compensate for the pain and suffering and many of the other forms of social disaster that followed the last great War. But it is all the more imperative that so far as we can compensate for this human damage and domestic hardship we should do so.
There can, of course, be no equality of sacrifice in this connection, and we are not asking for the impossible, but those who survived injury, those who escaped the worst consequences of the War should be generous in dealing with the special victims of the War and their dependants. For the very reason that parity in cost and suffering is impossible, we should be above mere technical and other niceties that save money to the State but rob the sufferers of such monetary and other solatiums as we can reasonably give. It is, of course, true that standards must be established, that regulations must be set

up and that major decisions and the policy determined by this House must be upheld. It is no easy task to deal with the very large number of complicated human problems that arise, but there must be an endeavour to maintain such fairness and consistency in administration as is possible. Within the existing provisions there are wide margins for discretion and the exercise of a generous interpretation. It is in this field that I first plead for less rigidity, for a broader outlook, a wider understanding of the duties of the Ministry.
Personally I have had every courtesy in the matter of correspondence with the Ministry. There has been complete willingness to consider and to write to me about cases. But it is in regard to the meagre results and the mostly unfavourable verdicts that we complain. I feel that the explanation rests in a narrow conception of the claims of the applicants and the reluctance to give them the benefit of the doubt, particularly in border-line cases. If I might put it in colloquial terms, the Ministry need more rope and less red tape. The Department have obviously not moved to the outer margin of discretion in favour of the applicants or they would not rigidly have adhered to economy as the first principle. All kinds of experts and specialists are readily employed and quoted, but unfortunately all these experts and specialists seem particularly interested in strict rules of economy and fine adherence to schedules rather than in any broad approach to the involved human needs of the applicants.
I suppose that among the very large number of people who submit claims it is inevitable that unjustifiable claims may be made from time to time and that unsupported criticism may occur. We quite recognise that reasonable oversight and inquiry are essential, but we feel that the very many deserving claims for revision and recognition ought not to be prejudiced by any experience of that kind. We appreciate, again, that exact principles of justice cannot be conditioned by costs or resources, but when the cost has been nearly halved and is further rapidly diminishing, when the dimensions of the problem are well in hand, it seems to me that both the time and the financial situation in regard to pensions are such as to make it particularly opportune to


review the residual claims and the position generally.
What is the position to-day? At the end of 1937 there were 442,317 disable-merit pensioners. Of those only 6.4 per cent. received Rio per cent. pensions; 24.2 per cent. received 30 to 40 per cent. pensions; and 48 per cent. received pensions of 20 to 30 per cent. The average cost of war pensions in Great Britain in the years 1920 to 1929 was nearly £77,000,000. The estimated cost for 1938 is £39,500,000 and that is nearly £1,000,000 down on the previous year. I recognise that credit has been taken in the past for the fact that Great Britain, in comparison with the Dominions and other countries, has been more generous and considerate to the war victims than those other countries, but this extraordinary fact emerges that although there has been that very rapid and substantial decline in our own payments, in the Dominions and other countries the figures stand as high as or higher than those of 1920. In the report of the Minister in 1936 he says:
In marked contrast to the comparable countries, is the stable course followed by the curve of British expenditure.
It is a rapidly descending curve of economy and whatever disparity there may have been in regard to these allowances in the first place, it is an extraordinary fact that there is no corresponding downward curve in the cases of the Dominions and other countries. It is obvious that they must have made amending provisions of a more generous character and that they are dealing with their people in a more generous fashion to-day. There are explanations ready to hand. For instance, in the case of New Zealand they have amended their regulations which now entitle the wife, widow or young child of a war disabled pensioner to claim for pension or dependant's allowance, provided the marriage took place before July, 1936. Consideration is only given in this country to cases where the marriage was contracted before the war disablement occurred, and it is somewhat remarkable to find that only one pensioner in three was married before the occasion of the disablement. We may very well ask why that very large number of people who took part in the Great War and who made great sacrifices, should be condemned to live limited and abnormal lives except at the risk or their dependants being

forced to apply for public assistance. It is further the case that in France and Canada special employment facilities are provided for those men who are unfit for competitive work and I think we shall all agree that where people have been so disabled that they cannot follow competitive employment, they should be given a chance in some other way to maintain a dignified and independent existence.
These and other points have been pressed at the British ex-Service Men's Conference recently and the British Legion, following a broadly-based and careful investigation, have asked for a Government inquiry into the condition of about 3,500,000 ex-service men whom they represent. In particular, the British Legion have gone into the problem of the prematurely aged ex-service man and while it is true that at this late date there is difficulty in securing exact data and the means of making comparisons, and while that renders precise judgments somewhat difficult, the British Legion Report goes on to say:
The Committee is, however, convinced from a survey of individual cases that there are a number of ex-service men whose health has broken down as a result of the rigours of war service, although it is not possible to substantiate, by medical sequence, a direct connection with such service.
In other words there is no question about the solid and actual human problem and the consequences but there is difficulty in providing the technical proof. My submission is that we should have more concern for these solid human facts and for proof that is obvious to our eyes, than have so much concern about these technical questions of proof. If I might quote two specific cases, again, where the merits are incontrovertible but, again, where they fail against the barrier of technical difficulties, I would draw attention to the following facts. The first case concerns a widow's claim. A man named Andrews worked for some years after his return from the Forces. He then secured a maximum pension for pulmonary tuberculosis. He lived 12 years and died of his pension disability. Then, we were told that the degree of disability was such that, although it qualified the man for a full pension, it was not a contributory factor in causing his death. The service damage and the aggravation was of such a character that it qualified him for complete pension, but


the official reply given was that it had not appreciably contributed to the fatal issue.
The facts were that the careful nursing and self sacrificing efforts of the man's wife and family were so effective that he was kept alive for 12 years. The effectiveness of the treatment was such that it destroyed the qualification for the widow's pension. That was her reward. If the wife and family had been careless and indifferent and if the man had died quickly, a claim could not have been resisted. The man's normal family and domestic life was absolutely ruined; his child was prejudiced in regard to its education; there was no chance of making any kind of provision for old age and the widow is now left to a bitter struggle for existence on the meagre civil pension which she enjoys.
The other case concerns a man who in 1920 had a life pension of 50 per cent. for the loss of the right eye and who, 17 years later, lost the sight of the other eye. Again the medical experts tell us that there is no connection between the loss of the right eye and the loss of the left eye. But at least it is an amazing coincidence that the man should have lost one eye in the War and subsequently, by some other process, lost the other eye. Again the layman is firmly and naturally convinced that there is a definite relationship between the loss of the one eye in the War and the subsequent loss of the other. The man has been left completely derelict except for the 50 per cent. pension. If he had only lost the one eye in the War, he would have been able to follow some employment subject to that disability, but having lost one eye in the War, for which he received only 50 per cent. pension, he has now lost the other eye and is left completely dependent on the 50 per cent. pension and such means of charity as he can secure. I would like to quote in fairness to the Ministry a paragraph from the British Legion's report on this and similar cases:
The committee is satisfied that the general principles which form the basis of the pension warrants are sound. The committee is also satisfied that the method of assessment of disablement referred to has operated to the distinct advantage of certain pensioners. Cases have, however, been presented to the committee of men who are placed at a disadvantage, namely, men with low medical assessments who are far more seriously disabled from an economic point of view. Others

are receiving pensions on an aggravation basis, that is to say, the disablement in question was not entirely due to War service but only aggravated thereby. In determining the amount of pension in those cases the Ministry excludes the extent of disablement due to the natural progress of the disease and as a result there are a number of men seriously disabled from an economic point of view receiving only small pensions.
Of course, in regard to all these cases of hardship and difficulty we can be told that if the assistance given is inadequate, they can fall back upon the public assistance committees. I would like to quote this further paragraph from the same report:
It is appreciated that public assistance is available to ex-service men broken down in health and in need of assistance and that, in common with the rest of the community, they are safeguarded against starvation, provided the existing social services are used. It has, however, been represented to the committee that ex-service men are strongly averse to applying for public assistance. Many regard it as degrading, giving the stigma of pauperism and consequent loss of standing and self-respect.
That is very restrained and moderate language, but another ex-service men's society says more bluntly:
The nation should do its duty to these men in an honest and businesslike manner without appeals to charity or applications for public assistance.
There is another important side to this matter of reference of these people to local authorities. There is the question as to whether we are to shift the burden on to local rates, or whether we are to share it nationally. The "Manchester Guardian," on 22nd March, for instance, indicated the extent of this grievance, both in its personal aspect and in relation to its financial and economic side. This report refers to a private conference, held in Manchester, on 21st March, of representatives of the Finance Committee of the City Council and local Members of Parliament, dealing with the question of the increasing rate burden which is being borne by the City Council as the result of legislation imposing further demands upon them locally. The conclusion of the report reads as follows:
It is understood that among other questions dealt with was that of the 400 disabled ex-service men in Manchester who are now receiving public assistance because their pensions are insufficient for their maintenance. Based on the relative population of Manchester and the British Isles, it is estimated that 20,000 war disabled men are partially supported by local rates. During the War the


Government agreed that humane provisions should be provided for all who were disabled and no reference was then made to the Poor Law or the means test. The hope is expressed by the leader of the Manchester City Council that it will result in the shouldering by the State of its full obligations to these men to the relief of the local rates.
The complete investigations of the British Legion reveal the fact that there are at least 95,000 ex-service men who are unable to work through incapacity, and who are in various stages of need of assistance. I do not intend to weary the House with any elaboration by way of detail, but it is surely unnecessary to exaggerate such facts, which speak all too eloquently for themselves. I only desire to emphasise one special recommendation in the report to which I have referred in regard to the restoration of the Special Campaign pension for the serving soldier, and the granting of this pension to all men who have served in the Forces of the Crown, whether on normal enlistment or on special engagements, such as those in regard to the Great War. A similar provision is obviously desirable in the case of men who have served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The Prime Minister in his reply to a request for a Government inquiry said:
I cannot agree that you have shown a case, nor am I satisfied that such an inquiry would he feasible or likely to lead to any reliable conclusions.
I submit that a case has been established. The arguments submitted this morning, although necessarily restricted, seem to provide an overwhelming case for reconsideration. All the arguments which I have used and the facts which I have in my possession, can be supplemented by the personal experience of Members of all sides of the House, and by the evidence in the possession of the responsible ex-service men's organisations. That evidence and these facts are ample cause for the inquiry that has been asked for. It is obvious that at this date no clear and simple actuarial data is available, but there is, equally obviously, a very clear and definite national duty. The actuaries and the Department could quickly devise means of remedy and relief if they were given the lead and any degree of authority. I urge the Government to set up a Select Committee to sift the evidence, to consider proposals and to listen to the insistent voice of criticism and to the claims in the country. I refrain from

associating this appeal and these arguments with any kind of bargaining or bribery in regard to recruiting. In any worthy cause and high enterprise—and the ex-service men were certainly recruited on that basis and in that spirit—risks are undertaken and lives are given without any niggling calculation of pounds, shillings and pence. That is the credit and moral reward of those who made the sacrifice, but the onus of recompense and the protection of these people against want and indignity is particularly a duty that devolves upon ourselves. Those who are spent and broken in the industrial field have their own right to pension, and that is urgent enough, as will be shown later in this discussion, but we are specially committed to those who, in the name of patriotism and national need, were killed, incapacitated or maimed in the country's cause. What is our claim to patriotic title and our answer to this pressing need, if we fail in generous recognition of their existing difficulties, to say nothing of our immediate duty, which the country can quite well afford? For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will further consider this matter in conjunction with the Prime Minister, and will concede the appointment of a Select Committee which is so urgently necessary to consider these present grievances and some way of national relief.

12.42 p.m.

Mrs. Hardie: I want to bring before the House the plight of another section of men who have given their services to the community and have been thrown upon the scrap-heap inadequately provided for. I refer to the position of the old age pensioners. Many of these men, when they receive a pension, have to leave their employment because it is considered that, when they reach the age of 65 and receive a pension, they should give up employment. That argument would be quite good if the pension were sufficient to provide these people with a decent standard of life. On the other hand, there are the men who have been receiving unemployment benefit because they cannot get work. They, also, are pushed off the unemployment benefit fund, where, if they had a wife and were without other dependants, they would be receiving at the present time 27s. a week. They are then expected to live on 10s. If their wives happen to be a little


younger than they are, they do not get anything until they also reach the age of 65. This means, in the majority of cases that they have to exist for a certain time on 10s. I know that the idea of giving the pension was that people might have saved a bit, and that the pension would augment their savings. I would point out to hon. Members, in case they do not remember it, that these men have worked for ever 50 years, and that during at least 30 years of that time there was no Unemployment Insurance, no Health Insurance and no provision made to carry them over unemployed periods or broken time, or anything like that. Out of the wages they then received, which were very low in a number of industries, they had to provide for periods of unemployment and slack seasons. Therefore, no worker under these conditions could possibly save sufficient to provide for old age.
Many of these men have been miners, engineers, railway workers, shipbuilders, joiners—I have many of them in my constituency—and agricultural workers. These men must have produced an enormous amount of wealth other than that which they have consumed. We know that it is part of the present system that no man is employed unless someone sees a way of making a profit out of his labour. Those who belong to the working class, when they go to look for a job, know that they will not be employed unless the employer sees his way to make a profit out of their labour. Therefore, these men who have been working for wages for perhaps 50 years must have produced by their strenuous toil an enormous amount of surplus wealth, from which they might well be allowed a share to provide for their old age.
I should like to refer to the position of women. Women who are engaged in industry do not receive a pension until they are 65, and many of them are out of employment to-day. There is another section of women to whom I would refer, and that is the wives and mothers, who do not receive any money by way of pension until they reach the age of 65, although their husbands may have been pushed off unemployment benefit, made to resign their jobs and to receive only 10s. a week. A mother is of some value to the State. We have heard a good

deal about war and the fall in the population. Here we have a body of women who are performing, and have performed, a very useful service to the State. Women of the working class, as a general rule, have brought up families and when they have reared those families they have rendered a useful service to the State which should entitle them to better treatment than they receive at the present time, under which they cannot get 10s. a week until they reach the age of 65.
People seem to assume that working-class children ought to look after their parents. I have noticed that in the well-to-do classes it is never assumed that the children should support their parents. It must be remembered that in the working class the children very often are married and have families of their own to support, and on the wages they are receiving they are not able, although they may be willing, adequately to support their parents. Moreover, it is a very humiliating position for a man of 65 to have to beg his children to provide for him. A man of 65 who has brought up a family has some standing in his own home, but he has not a very good standing when he has to ask to be supported. I have felt that particularly in regard to the means test. I am not a very profound feminist in this matter, because I emphasise the humiliation to the man. A man who has been the head of the house ought not to be put in the position that he has to ask his children to support him, because he is denied unemployment benefit or his pension is inadequate.
In many cases these people are driven to ask for public assistance. The whole idea, as I understood it, of the old age pension scheme was to prevent decent working people from being driven to ask for public assistance. Under the old Poor Law in Scotland people would rather starve or even die before they would submit to the humiliation of going to the Poor Law as it then was. That independent spirit has been very largely broken down in Scotland because of necessity and long continued unemployment. I do not suggest that these people are not entitled to go to the public assistance committee because, as I have already pointed out, these men, in addition to working for their own wages, have provided large profits for their employers, and have paid taxes and rates for a long number of years.
When these people ask for public assistance, what happens? More humiliation. There is investigation into all their means and the position of their children. They have to submit to that humiliation after over 50 years of hard and useful work. This system is also unfair to the local authorities. It simply means that the local authorities have to make up for the defects of the State. When a local election comes along, the accusation is always made that the Labour party put up the rates. The peculiar thing is that that accusation is made even when there is no Labour majority on the council. We are still supposed, by some means or other, to put up the rates. I suggest that the reason why the rates are increased is because the National Government are not facing up to their responsibilities. In Scotland in 1931, when we were supposed to be in the middle of a slump, the cost of public assistance was £3,864,848; in 1937, in a boom year, after several years of the National Government, which was supposed to have brought prosperity to the nation, the cost was £7,380,249, or almost double. We claim that that is due to the National Government throwing responsibility upon the local authorities, and part of it is due to supplementing inadequate pensions.
There was a question on the Order Paper to-day which was not put, and therefore we did not get the figures, asking for information as to the amounts paid in Glasgow in the supplementation of inadequate pensions. I understand that it costs the Glasgow City Council more to supplement inadequate pensions than it costs the National Government to pay those pensions. We want the Government to face up to these matters and to see what can be done to remedy them. Great Britain, I understand, is the wealthiest nation in the world, but we do not treat our industrial population too well in these matters. We find that in New Zealand, where they are not so wealthy, a man at 65 receives a pension of £1 2s. 6d. and a woman at 6o receives the same amount of pension. Therefore, a married couple receive £2 5s. I understand that the New Zealand Government are putting forward an improved scheme of pensions at the present time.
I expect that some hon. Member on the other side of the House will tell us how much better off the workers are in

this country compared with certain other countries, and probably the dictatorship countries will be quoted. The dictators are not our friends and we ought not to be asked to accept the conditions which apply in those countries. We expect better conditions here, otherwise why should we fight for democracy? We are convinced that the National Government, if they had the will, could improve the conditions very substantially.
I should like to deal with the position of the over-70 old age pensioner. Many of them are black-coated workers. I was a member of a public assistance subcommittee under the London County Council for some time, and a big proportion of the cases which came before us were people over 70 receiving old age pensions, respectable, decent people, who had to ask for a little extra assistance, a bag of coal, or a little help in the payment of rent. These people had paid rates and taxes for a long period. We think that the Minister responsible should see that something more is done for them. No one can tell us that we cannot afford it or that the workers are getting a great deal. I was looking at some figures the other day and discovered the amount of indirect taxation paid by the workers of this country and the amount of direct taxation which is paid. The wealthy classes are doing very well in shifting the responsibilities on to the poorer sections of the community.
In 1914 indirect taxation was 20.50 per cent. of the total revenue and direct taxation 79.50 per cent. In 1929 indirect taxation was 36.3 per cent. of the revenue and direct taxation 63.97 per cent. In 1936 indirect taxation was 40.29 per cent. of the total revenue and direct taxation had fallen to 59.71 per cent. You have also to consider that of the interest paid on the National Debt about 25 per cent. goes back to the same class of persons who lend their money. The amount paid on Army, Navy and Air Force services is about 22 per cent., while the social services get only 46 per cent. of the total amount that is spent. My point is that the workers through indirect taxation pay more than they get hack in social services and, therefore, we are not making an unreasonable request when we ask that something shall be done to improve the conditions of old age pensioners.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that in a Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House it is not in order for hon. Members to refer to matters which would require legislation. The Debate so far has gone very near the border line.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: It is not because I am unmindful of the claims of old age pensioners that I wish to direct my few remarks to the subject which was introduced by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson). I think the House will agree with me that he put the case of ex-Service pensioners very adequately and very eloquently. In attacking the Minister of Pensions, as we are bound to do on this issue, we do realise that he is not entirely the villain of the piece. I have a suspicion that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is sitting on the Front Bench has a great deal to say in this matter, and perhaps the efforts of the Minister of Pensions in response to our appeals are limited by the nefarious designs of the Treasury. On an occasion like this I could have wished that more hon. Members who served in the last War were present and taking part in the Debate. This is not a matter which should be a party issue. There are issues which divide hon. Members from top to bottom, but this is not one of them. It should not divide the House at all. Hon. Members who have Service experience sit on both sides of the House, and the claims of ex-Service men should not be made on any party basis whatever. The British Legion has members of all political parties, and it is an issue upon which the whole House should be agreed.
What is the issue? It is that ex-Service men and their dependants are not being adequately and generously treated by this country, as they were led to believe would be the case when they enlisted in the last War. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that he did not want to make this a bargaining matter for the purpose of getting recruits which are being asked for to defend the country in case of attack. That is true, but I am quite sure that recruiting for the Defence Forces of this country is being impeded by the fact that ex-Service men and their dependants have been so badly, so ungenerously, treated by the

nation for their patriotic efforts in the last War. Certain figures have been given to the House this morning. I do not question them, but I think there are other countries which have treated their ex-Service men far better than this country has treated ours. The United States of America have done more for their war veterans than we have; at any rate, I recollect that, owing to political pressure brought to bear on the United States Government, the veterans of the last War have been able to get a considerable cash bonus.
We are asking for an inquiry into the facts which we have put before the House. When I say "we" I refer to certain hon. Members who have consistently kept this matter before the Minister of Pensions, and particularly to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who have lost no opportunity of bringing this matter before the Government and on occasion have been received by the head of the Government. A deputation of hon. Members, including, I think, my two hon. Friends, were received by Lord Baldwin very sympathetically. We are not questioning the Minister of Pension's attitude on the matters we bring before him. They always receive sympathetic consideration, but we want something more. Our constituents want something more than a few polite words from the head of the Government and the Minister of Pensions.
Let me just quote a personal experience. During the last War I had the unfortunate experience of being wounded twice, once with gas. I went through the usual medical boards, and when I was demobilised I was called up before a board and informed that I should receive a cash gratuity of £30. I received that gratuity, and was very thankful for it. But I have been fortunate in that I have been able to look after myself since then. Many of my comrades, not only in the rank and file but in the commissioned ranks as well, who served with me have not had the same satisfactory experience after the War, and to-day they are in dire necessity. It is on their behalf that we appeal to the Minister of Pensions. We do not wish to make his life a burden and a misery, but in this matter he is the representative of the Government, and he has to bear the burden of our contention, which is that the country is not treating the ex-service men and their dependants as it ought to do.
What is it that we ask? Obviously, we are this morning precluded from suggesting anything which would necessitate legislation and an increased burden on the Exchequer, although, of course, that would be the ultimate effect if our representations were favourably received. We ask that there should be an inquiry to sift the facts which can be brought before the Minister of Pensions or whoever it is who undertakes the inquiry. The facts are there, and if they are not as we say they are, it will be easy for the Government to say that we have misrepresented them. We do not believe that we have done that. I think I am right in saying that there is not an hon. Member in any part of the House who has not at some time or other received representations from ex-service men among his constituents asking him to do something to get the Minister of Pensions to give a little dole of some sort. Personally, I have not had many cases to put before the Minister, but on one occasion when I put a case before him—I do not know whether I was particularly fortunate—I was able to get a 20 per cent. pension for one of my constituents.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member was lucky.

Mr. Bellenger: That was only one case among the large number of cases which the Minister has had to reject. I have intentionally limited my remarks this morning, because I know that there are other matters which hon. Members wish to raise; but I hope that the Minister will not take my brevity as meaning that we have not a very wide case to put before the House. We have; and I hope that hon. Members opposite will rise and back up that case. I believe that if only hon. Members who support the Government would give us their support on this issue, we could force the Government to take some notice of our remarks. I invite hon. Members on the benches opposite, which are scantily occupied, to back up the remarks that we have made. I hope that they will bear some fruit in the future, even though our representations have not given us all that for which we have asked in the past.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I am glad to be able to respond to the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and to support his request

for an inquiry to be set up. I agree with the hon. Member that the treatment of ex-service men is not at present a party question, and, in the interests of ex-service men and the country as a whole, I think hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to see that it is never made a party question. One of the merits of the policy of the British Legion. which has done so much for the ex-service men of this country, has been that it has kept outside party politics. Therefore, I regret that the request which the British Legion made to the Prime Minister for a select committee to inquire into the condition of ex-service men was refused. I hope that was not the last word on the question, and that the Prime Minister will give further consideration to it.
It has been said that it would be unwise to grant this inquiry because it would raise false hopes and expectations. I believe that the worst condition in which people can be is to be without any hope. If it be true that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, I believe it is equally true that it is better to have hoped and been disappointed than to be entirely without hope. Those who are up against the blank wall of no hope are in a very much worse condition than those who have some hope that their grievances may at least be considered. That is my answer to the plea that the granting of this inquiry would raise false hopes. I believe that the Government put themselves in a wrong position when they meet the demand for an inquiry from a responsible body such as the British Legion by saying that they can grant no inquiry. When the Government refuse an inquiry, there is the suggestion that they are afraid of it or that they are not satisfied that they have a case which can bear inquiry. If the Government are satisfied with their treatment of ex-service men—and in view of the promises that were made to ex-service men when they were called upon to enlist, I submit that there should be no question on which the Government should be more scrupulous to be faithful to their obligations than in their treatment of ex-service men—then they have nothing to fear from an inquiry; but to refuse an inquiry is to put into the minds of impartial people a doubt, at least, as to whether the Government are prepared to face the issue. All of us are anxious that


ex-service men should not be compelled to have recourse to public assistance. They do not want to do so, and we must admire the spirit which makes them unwiling to have recourse to that kind of help. We must not drive them to seek public assistance.

Mr. E. Smith: We have done.

Mr. Lipson: I agree that in many cases they have been compelled to do so, but there are still a great many who would rather continue to suffer privation and hardship than have recourse to public assistance. That is a spirit which we ought to do our best to keep alive. For these reasons, I ask the Government to give further consideration to the request for an inquiry to be held into the treatment of ex-service men. I believe that if such an inquiry were held and the facts showed that it was necessary for the country to do more to fulfil its obligation, the country would be prepared to do more. But let the facts be put before the nation and an impartial inquiry be held so that the country may know whether it has been faithful to the obligations into which it has entered.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: We have just heard an admirable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I wish to support what he has said, although I do not wholly agree with his outlook when he says it is better to have one's hopes dashed than never to have hoped, for personally I prefer a philosophic pessimism. Often when one expects the worst, the best comes dancing gaily and unexpectedly into sight.

Mr. Ellis Smith: A man cannot live on hope.

Mr. Adams: That is the whole point. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) for so strenuously emphasising that point by his interruption. When we come back after the Easter Recess, Mr. Speaker, I understand that your Chair is to be crowned by a second clock, but, as that clock is not yet there, if I exceed my customary maximum of 10 minutes, do not blame me, but attribute the blame to the Office of Works for their delay in setting up the promised physical warning to the identally verbose. I am grateful to

the hon. Members who have raised the matter of pensions to-day, because it affects intimately every constituency, and I am going to consume a few minutes in mentioning other aspects of the question. Before doing so, may I be allowed to say that I wish that the whole system of pensions could be codified in one Statute, but manifestly I must not enlarge on that aspect of the matter to-day. All that I want to be allowed to do is to point out existing anomalies and to argue for inquiry, without, of course, suggesting legislation.
It is only to-day that there has been constituted the committee to inquire into spinsters' pensions, and delay is part of the theme of my remarks to-day. It is eight weeks ago yesterday since we had the decisive Debate in the House of Commons, and I cannot understand why it is that, when this particular claim of the spinsters is raised, there is always this delay and unwillingness to deal with their perfectly legitimate claims. The only possible excuse seems to be the lethargy this flesh is heir to. I often wonder why there has been such an irrational opposition to their claims, and I am sometimes guilty of the unworthy speculation whether it may not be that their electoral power is not great. But perhaps I may remind His Majesty's Government that the spinsters have support and sympathy, which extends among both sexes, far beyond the numbers of the women who, by choice or chance, happen to remain single. It seems to me that to grant spinsters pensions at the age of 55 would merely be a piece of legislative tidying-up. It would be hardly more than dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the existing pension system. I hope those considerations will be actively before the committee when they start their inquiries.
All of us in this House are glad that we have a fairly comprehensive system of widows' pensions. I would point out to the Government and the House the anomaly contained in this experience of neighbours, of which I have direct and practical knowledge. Two spinsters of 60. sisters, have to turn out to work at 6 o'clock in the morning, in all weathers. Their next-door neighbour is a young childless widow. She is able-bodied and earns 30s. a week, and in addition she receives 10s. a week widow's pension. That, I suggest, contains a really startling and staring anomaly. To-day the


Spinters—175,000 of them—above the age of 55 get nothing at all for their contributions, unless and until they reach the age of 65. I say "unless and until" expressly, because many of them never reach that age.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must realise that the question of spinsters' pensions at any rate is one which could not possibly be dealt with except by legislation.

Mr. Adams: With great respect, we lave on similar occasions had this matter raised when it has been suggested that these considerations which I have been submitting might be submitted to a committee of inquiry on this subject, but I will not pursue the matter of spinsters' pensions any further. I wish next to mention the case of the old age pensioner. I recognise that the proposal which is sometimes made in party literature of a 100 per cent. increase is something which we would all like to promise and to give. But it is something which I would never promise, because I know that it belongs to the realm of the grandiose, the spectacular, and the utopian, but what should not be impossible, I submit to the Government, is a slight increase. Surely couples of 70 years of age can hardly be expected to live in decency on £1 a week. With a difficulty which many of us can hardly conceive they may have accumulated savings amounting to £200 or £300, but when they reach the age of 7o and have to subsist, or try to subsist, on £1 a week, their savings will soon dwindle away. They may be left, after a life of useful work, to try to subsist on 20s. a week. Every hon. Member must agree, surely, that this cannot be done decently. I could give the Financial Secretary to the Treasury scores of cases of really pathetic struggles along the last few miles of the road. Could not their lot be eased by some addition, apparently slight, but making all the difference between distress and a tolerable subsistence?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member suggest that that could possibly he done without legislation?

Mr. Adams: With great respect, these are considerations which I think might well be submitted to a committee of inquiry on the whole question of pensions,

and with equally great respect I submit that it is not out of order on an Adjournment Motion. May I have your Ruling, Sir?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only Ruling that I can give is to say that I think the hon. Member was definitely advocating legislation, and that he cannot do.

Mr. Adams: All these matters which I have ventured to raise are points which I hope will come before a committee. The hon. Lady who represents the Springburn division (Mrs. Hardie) did, at some length, point out the hardship to which old age pensioners are subjected, and I hope the results of any such inquiry as I have in mind would be to soften an admitted hardship. I echo what she said when I submit that this softening of such hardships as are suffered by old age pensioners is something which should be earnestly shouldered by a healthy, vigorous, and powerful society like Great Britain.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: May I add my voice to those of the hon. Members who have already spoken on behalf of the ex-service men of this country? When I attend ex-service men's functions, as I sometimes do, I am very much impressed with some words which they use during part of their conventions—"They shall not grow old. … We will remember them." I take it that when they are so speaking they are referring to the illustrious dead, who are remembered best by remembering their living comrades who are suffering now. In those trenches, under fire and in the face of death, pledges were given one to another, and the spirit of Armistice Day is only half observed if true respect for the dead is not remembered by giving due reward to the living. "They shall not grow old" refers, I said, to those who have passed, but what of those who are living? Is it true that "they shall not grow old"? Is it not true that they have grown old years before their time? Is it not true that men who should now be in their very prime of life, men of 45 to 50 years of age, are now decrepit, old, worn out, and exhausted, largely owing to their experiences in the trenches, which have undermined their constitution and made them physically less able to resist diseases which came afterwards.
In 1915, when the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill was being considered on its Second Reading, a Member of this House, Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, prophesied that in the future men would come back from the Great War, which was then proceeding, with diseases caused by the fighting and that they would have to fight for their pensions. I will quote what he said:
In the past we have always had to fight against the Admiralty, the War Office and the Treasury who put forward the plea that the man died of a disease not attributable to the Service. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to make it very clear to the House that this point has not been overlooked by them, and that in connection with a war of this kind we shall not have men years afterwards, or widows whose husbands died from diseases contracted in the War, having to depend on the Admiralty or the War Office alone to say whether that disease was attributable to the War itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1915; col. 1876–7, Vol. 72.]
We have arrived at such a stage now, when men are developing diseases which showed no signs when they were discharged. They are difficult to prove, but the greatest proof to me is to see these men walking about and to hear them tell their stories how, when they were demobilised, they were so glad to get out of the Army that they did not reveal anything which might have kept them in the Army a few days or weeks longer. So glad were they to get back home that they hid certain things that they should have told the authorities. To our shame many of these men have now to resort to public assistance. I have a letter from an ex-service man who is 68 years of age, in which he says:
I am not drawing any disability pension, although I have a crippled left hand. I joined up at West Hartlepool in 1914 and was discharged from France, 27th March, 1919. … I also had three of my sons up with me, two in the Yorkshire Regiment and one a stoker on His Majesty's Ship "Renown," so you see I gave my all for my King and country.
This is the poignant part of the letter—
What have they done for me? Put me into the workhouse, forgotten, and I have never received a penny out of any of the funds since I finished.
I am ashamed of my country for allowing these ex-service men to spend the latter part of their lives in the workhouse. What has become of the pledges of 1914, the promises that were given

to these men if they went into the Army and fought for their country to defend their homes? I remember that during the War the white feather was the symbol of cowardice and was given to those who refused to accept their obligations. If something is not done for these ex-service men, we shall deserve to be dubbed a white feather nation. The British Legion's report, which has been extensively quoted, shows that we have thousands of men incapacitated, not fit to work, under the Poor Law and in municipal hospitals. It is a lasting disgrace to this country that we should have our veterans who served us well now on Poor Law relief. Is it not possible to have the inquiry which the British Legion and the ex-service men want? Is it not possible to save these men the humiliation of going to the public assistance committees?
Money was made out of the War and money is being made now out of rearmament. Is it beyond the wit of man. to have an inquiry to devise ways and means so that these men shall not have to hammer out a meagre and miserable existence? I believe that such an inquiry would be welcomed in all parts of the House. If the inquiry shows that there is nothing substantial in the report of the British Legion, the report can easily be refuted. The Government should conduct an impartial inquiry into all these questions. The ex-service men will be alarmed at the cold reception of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, has extinguished any hope there might have been lurking in their breasts. To-day is Maundy Thursday, the day of assistance to the needy, and if any thing that we on these benches can do can ensure an inquiry that will lead to assistance for these men, we shall consider this Debate well worth while.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I wish that the Government in their administration of pensions took a more humane view of the position of those who have to receive them. Although I wish to speak mostly about war pensions, particularly with regard to the widows of ex-service men, I must say that in the administration of widows' and old age pensions there could be a much better and more generous method of treatment. I hope that it will have the attention of the Government. May I, at the risk of


repeating what has been said many times this morning, remind the Minister that when the men went out in 1914 and in the years following, they were plainly told that they and their families would be looked after? They did not examine the promise; they did not look at it line by line to see where the commas were, or whether there were any fullstops; they did not expect that they would be denied pensions by reason of the Royal Warrant, which is restrictive in its operations. The Government should realise that these men understood that if they were disabled and were prevented from securing a livelihood, and if their families were put to hardship, the Government would look after them because of the service which they had rendered to the country.
There are now many men and families suffering because of war service, and because some disablement has occurred to the men in later years, and they are denied pensions because medical men state that they cannot find anything which would warrant them stating that the condition was due to war service. I have had experience of medical men and medical certificates in connection with workmen's compensation, and I have not great respect for many of them, particularly when they make out certificates stating whether or not a man is capable of working. I would ask the Minister of Pensions to pay regard to the fact that although these men were not wounded or disabled during the War, the conditions of life and the rush and scramble of industry and commerce are rendered worse for them because of the condition in which the service which they rendered in the War has left them. I hope that regard will be had to that aspect of the matter, and that more just and humane administration will enable them to receive pensions.
I should also like the Minister to pay attention to the number of ex-service men who are patients in mental hospitals. Those engaged in administrative work in some parts of the country view them as a tragedy. These men, though physically strong, are mentally unbalanced and mentally ill by reason of their service. I am sure the country would not deny to the Minister any money which was required for treatment or research such as might afford some hope that these men could be restored to mental fitness and

take their place once again among their fellows outside the walls of mental hospitals. I know that officers of his Department visit those hospitals at stated times, but I hope that more than that will be done towards restoring these men to health. If any demand is made for money for inanimate material such as armaments the country finds it, and I suggest that the human material which served us so well has a right to better treatment even if that costs more than is being spent upon armaments.
The other class to whom I wish to refer are the widows. I ask that the Special Grants Committee should be abolished, because its conduct during the last few years has been deplorable. Numbers of widows have been deprived of pensions because of gossip about them but without any proof of the charges. I have heard of one or two cases. I shall not mention the names. It would be an outrage to mention in public the name of a woman about whom people had gossiped, because the people who make those charges but will not afterwards face up to them know that some of the mud they fling will stick. Why does not the Minister confront the widow with the people who make the charge against her? Why do his investigation officers go spying round to ascertain whether the woman happens to be in the company of some man—even walking with him through the streets, or in some house or public place—and why do the Special Grants Committee then deprive the widow of her pension, declaring that because it has been reported that she has been talking to a man she must be a person guilty of immoral conduct?
I will relate one case and then I have finished. It was the case of a widow drawing a pension under health insurance. That pension had been taken away from her by reason of her children having reached 16 years of age, and she was anxious to get it restored. I explained that the Contributory Pensions Act deprived her of that pension under particular circumstances because of her children having reached the age of 16. Then she mentioned that she had been to see certain people in the hope that they might help her, and among them was a certain lady who has been investigating these cases and even giving judgment for local pensions committees. She said to that lady, "I would like you to help me to


approach the Minister to see whether my pension can be restored." The lady replied, "Oh, you have had your pension taken away. Evidently you have been living with some man." That was a statement made by a woman whose opinion had been taken by the Minister—not by the present Minister, I hope, but by a previous Minister—with regard to women against whom there had been gossip and whose pensions it was sought to take away.
There is much more which I should like to say, but I hope the Minister will consider getting rid of this Special Grants Committee. Let us do things in real British form, so that if anybody makes a charge against a person that person will be faced with those making the charge and the matter be fully investigated. I am convinced that many women to-day are suffering the loss of pensions unjustly and unfairly, and I ask the Minister to restore those pensions.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I should like to ask the Minister what procedure is adopted by his Department with respect to widows in receipt of war pensions when a pension is withdrawn. Is any opportunity given to the widow to refute any of the statements which are made—not necessarily by neighbours—upon which his officers act? From recent investigations into a specific case, I have reason to believe that either the officer has been misinformed or that he has not set out the whole of the facts. I should like to know whether, before it is decided to withdraw a pension, there is any opportunity for the widow herself to be heard or for someone to be heard on her behalf, so that the decision is not taken on an ex parte statement.

1.43 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: In view of the fact that the Minister is about to reply, I shall cut short what I had intended to say. One realises the difficulty of my hon. Friend, as time goes on, in the position of Minister of Pensions. It is much more difficult to be Minister of Pensions now than it was 10 or 15 years ago, on account of the vagueness, as it were, of many of the complaints submitted and the difficulty of making a diagnosis and coming to a decision. While saying that, I may be allowed to point out that those of us who are supposed to know something

about medical science, having spent our lives in it, are most discouraged when we bring cases to the Ministry, cases which we know ourselves are really cases of hardship, on account of the great difficulty which we have in getting a medical review of them. I have recently come to the conclusion that it is almost hopeless to try to get a review of a case, even though one knows in one's own mind that it is most deserving of reconsideration.
Even though the Government would not agree to a general inquiry into the whole of our pensions system—I know that would be a big undertaking—I would ask whether the hon. Gentleman could not set up an inquiry into the medical aspects of these cases. Medical science has changed tremendously in the last 20 years, and there is a different point of view in regard to matters of the heart and chest, for example. Could he not set up a medical committee to start with, to secure a review of the various aspects of the medical complaints? I say nothing about the surgical complaints, because when you see a wound before you, you can make a diagnosis and take a more definite line in regard to the position of the patient than you can in a lot of the medical cases. The medical fraternity have changed their minds in the last few years, and I suggest that my hon. Friend could, with his resources, quite easily set up a fresh review of the whole of this question.

1.47 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am sorry to have in any way caused the cutting short of any speeches by hon. Members, but a number of other topics are to be raised, and that is the only reason why I am intervening now. We had a long discussion on the subject of war pensions on the Adjournment before Christmas, and most of the points raised to-day were mentioned then and dealt with by myself. I am sure that the House will excuse me if I do not repeat at any considerable length the points which I made a few months ago. As in the last Debate, so to-day, and I suppose inevitably, a great many general allegations have been made, but comparatively few facts—to-day, no fresh facts, so far as I can ascertain—have been put before me to answer. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate agreed that there were certain standard regulations in the administration of the pensions system which had to be upheld, but his point, I


gathered, was that there were technicalities and rules which stood in the way of our exercising that discretion which he thinks should be exercised on some occasions.
It is obvious that, in coming to a determination in a pensions matter, medical considerations must play by far the largest part. I am prohibited, and rightly prohibited, from granting entitlement to a pension unless I have a medical certificate. When I am pressed to exercise my discretion or to indulge in more laxity it comes to my being pressed to ask my medical advisers for medical certificates which might not represent their honest view of the cases. I am sure that the House would never expect me to do such a thing. I put that point to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) before Christmas, and I asked him whether he wanted an alteration or an addition to the warrant or wished me to disregard the medical evidence. His reply was, "No." I pointed out to him and to the House that when they asked me to be more lax I had to indicate somehow to the medical profession, whose duty it was to furnish me with a certificate, that they should not, as they at present undoubtedly do, give me the certificate which, in their honest and conscientious opinion, they think I ought to have on the disability in question. I am sure that hon. Members, in pressing for more discretion, will not for one moment wish that I or the Ministry should fall into error of that kind.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to the meagreness of successful results in cases which they have brought to my notice. I agree that the successful percentage of cases put by hon. Members is very small. The normal statutory body for receiving complaints is the local War Pensions Committee, appointed by Statute to do that work. I have been visiting a large number of them in the last few weeks. There are 160, and I have visited 110, and I propose to visit them all. It has been pointed out to me in almost all cases that, from the point of view of the chairman of the War Pensions Committee, there is far less contact between them and the local Members of Parliament than they would like. I pointed out to them how small a percentage of successful cases Members of Parliament obtained, and I have agreed

with them that it is largely due to the fact that the committees, being the statutory bodies to whom cases should come, get the best cases, and that the cases which are turned down by them as a result of their local knowledge are not likely to be successful at a later stage.
The same is true, in a less degree, of the British Legion, which does an immense amount of work and is in contact through its officials with the Ministry. The British Legion and the War Pensions Committees are a sort of filter through which comes a constant stream of cases to the Ministry. Many of the cases are successful. In the last Debate I showed the comparatively high percentage of successes achieved in this way against those achieved by my hon. Friends and colleagues in this House. We ought to bear in mind the machinery that is in existence. I have had experience in my own constituency of cases being brought to me which had been through the hands of the War Pensions Committee or the British Legion for years and had met with an unsatisfactory response from them. Hon. Members must not be unduly disappointed at the little success which I admit they receive at my hands.
The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that the pensioner should have the benefit of the doubt; I agree. In the last Debate I gave a definition of what that meant. I will not weary the House by repeating it now, but, broadly speaking, we cannot award a pension on a mere possibility. We can, and do, award pensions on a reasonable probability. In very short terms that is the definition of the benefit of the doubt which I quoted in my last speech on this matter. Reference was made also to the British scales and it was pointed out that the curve of British expenditure was downwards. Over the lapse of years the number of pensioners is decreasing, but when hon. Members say that there is no corresponding downward curve in other countries they should realise that we are the only country in the world among the combatants that did not reduce our pensions scales during the financial crisis. Every other country did so, and since then, those countries have restored the reductions. That affects the curve, of course, or the expenditure graph of those countries, and it is very unfair to point


to the British curve descending without at the same time remembering that there was no correspending descent in the British curve at that time because His Majesty's Government did not make any reduction, and that there were no reductions to restore. Another point to bear in mind is that the social services in this country do not exist in comparable fashion in other Continental countries with which comparison is made.
Reference was made to the question of employment. As I pointed out last time, the provision of employment in private firms for disabled service men is our constant pre-occupation, and I am glad to say that the percentage of employment among ex-service men is higher than among non-ex-service men, thanks to the King's Roll, the special arrangements made with the Employment Exchanges, and the attention which everyone concerned with the problem gives to it, and, I hope, will continue to give to it. Reference was made to the report of a committee of the British Legion dealing with what is called the prematurely aged ex-service man. I referred to that problem before Christmas, but I could not refer to the report, because it was not then published. It has since been published, and, as hon. Members know, the Prime Minister has received a deputation which came to him to deal with the recommendations of the committee.
I cannot go into questions affecting the recommendations of the report, for the good reason that it would raise an entirely new class of claimants not demonstrably disabled by war service. As matters at present stand, there must be reasonable evidence that a man for whom I am to be responsible is not only an ex-service man, but a man who has been disabled in the War. Unless there is such evidence, the man is not within the province of my Department, and legislation would be required in order to bring him in. Therefore, I can only deal with the man who is demonstrably disabled, and in that connection I would point out to the House that, so far as the Ministry of Pensions is concerned, the report of the British Legion Committee makes several observations of a kind which are reassuring, not only to myself as Minister, but to all hon. Members who are interested in the administration. The

report states that this committee, which investigated the matter for 18 months:
is satisfied that the general principles which form the basis of the Pension Warrants are sound.
In other words, there is nothing in this report which suggests that the general basis of the Pension Warrants on which I now act should be altered or changed. The report goes on to say:
The committee is satisfied that where reasonable evidence is produced to show the disablement is due to War service, pension is paid under the War Compensation Schemes.
I do not think that the House or the country can ask for more or expect less. The House does not want war pensions awarded to men who suffered no injury in the War. The House desires that pensions should be compensation for war injuries, and, in establishing the right to compensation, there must be reasonable evidence to support that right. Otherwise, the whole system of war pensions goes into the melting pot, and becomes no system at all, but a series of veterans' bonuses and general ex-service doles. That is clearly recognised by the following statement of the British Legion Committee:
It has no desire unduly to load the list of pensioners for whom the Minister of Pensions is responsible, as this would only react adversely on war-disabled men.
My concern is for the war-disabled men, and I should never think of suggesting to the House that I should take any action which would react adversely upon them. Therefore, so far as the requirement relates to a body of ex-service men not demonstrably disabled as a result of the war, it is certainly no concern of mine as Minister of Pensions. Whatever other arrangements may have to be made for those cases, I myself cannot and should not have such a responsibility.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made the statement that ex-service men were not generously treated. By that I assume he means disabled men. If we take the existing rate of pensions on the scale laid down by this House in 1919, when the cost of living was 215, taking pre-war as 100, we find that today, with the cost of living at 154 the same pension is held, it having been stabilised in 1928; and, on the basis of the difference between these two index figures, we find that a pension on the


scale of 40s. awarded in 1919 and stabilised in 1928 has to-day a purchasing power of 55s. It is easy to say that the scale laid down in 1919 is an ungenerous scale, but its purchasing power has been increased to the extent I have indicated, and the same applies all the way down the scale. If we make comparisons with other countries, like Germany, France and Italy, we find that, while our expenditure works out at £53 per annum per disabled man, the Germany expenditure is £42, and the French is£36 I think the hon. Member said that the expenditure in the United States was more generous, but in the 1936 report of the Ministry of Pensions it was shown, taking the cost of living then, that that is not so. It is, however, very unsafe to compare our expenditure with that of the United States, because we are comparing our war pensions system, which is administered, as I have said, under certain rules and regulations connected with war disablement and war service, with, in the United States, what is known as a veterans' bonus, which is really not comparable with anything of the kind in this country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do the French and the German figures also allow for the difference in the cost of living?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think they are comparable when converted into sterling on the same basis, but I will look that point up and let the hon. Member know.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) raised some points in connection with the war pensions system. I know that he has always felt considerable difficulty over the Special Grants Committee, which, as the House knows, deals with the comparatively few cases in which widows' pensions are forfeited. It would be unfair to take away a woman's pension on remarriage and yet allow it to be paid during an irregular union, and I am sure that that is a principle which the House would not for a moment wish to controvert. That is a difficulty which we all feel in connection with the question of administration. The Special Grants Committee was set up by Statute, and, therefore, it would have to be abolished by Statute. It is a body which to all intents and purposes is independent of the Ministry, having been set up by Parliament in order, no doubt, to provide a cushion between the Minister and cases

of that sort. I, of course, keep a careful watch upon it.
When the question was raised before Christmas, some pretty hard things were said about the Special Grants Committee and about the war pensions committees; and, for the benefit of Members who said those hard things, I think I ought to remind them that considerable protest was raised up and down the country among the war pensions committees, who have the preliminary duty of dealing with these cases, on account of the fact that charges of that kind were made against them during the Debate in question. I have here a letter from the chairman of the Leeds, Harrogate and District War Pensions Committee. I will read a portion of it, because it will explain the kind of procedure that is customary among the war pensions committees. It says:
It is the practice of our war pensions committee to give a widow every opportunity of attending before the committee and stating her case, and I may say it requires more than a moral lapse for a widow to forfeit her pension. Moreover, the forfeiture of a pension by a widow is very rare, but even then the pension can be reinstated when the cause of forfeiture is removed. The war pensions committee consists of 26 members, representing many interests, and are all people who would not be a party to any of the meannesses suggested. …
Further, the letter says:
Any ex-service man or dependant who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Ministry of Pensions has a right to go before the War Pensions Committee and state their case, which is always heard sympathetically. In fairness to the members of my committee, who give a great deal of time visiting and helping, I should like to remove any bad impression which may have been created.

Mr. Kelly: I notice that he does not say they face them with their accusers.

Mr. Ramsbotham: That point was dealt with last time, and, I think, quite fairly. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), I can only say that I have had no such complaints in the past 12 months.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is not that an indication of the hopeless despair?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think that is quite fair. I am here to smooth out any difficulties and to convince hon. Members that there is no ground for dissatisfaction. I shall be only too delighted to see the hon. Member for Denbigh. He should be aware that there is a system of


independent medical experts. They are gentlemen of the highest repute in the medical profession, selected from a panel of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons. I am making constant use of them. If the hon. Member will bear that in mind, it may go a long way in disposing of the objections he feels.
In conclusion, I want to make a general point. I think that the hon. Member said that the administration of pensions was becoming more difficult. To a certain extent that is true. The administration is becoming concerned more and more with the handling of individual cases, and less and less with general principles and policy. The reason is that the average age of ex-service men to-day is about 50, and men of 50 are subject to the various ailments that result from the wear and tear of ordinary civilian life. It is for that reason that we get now so many complaints of ailments such as heart trouble, rheumatism, and chest trouble—the very things that are, in exactly the same proportions, among people in civilian occupations, being dealt with by the approved societies. This state of affairs is inherent in the whole system from the very start. The right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Pensions in the last Socialist Government stated to the House very clearly what was a forecast of the position to-day. I would remind the House of his words:
At the present date"—
this was in 1929—
more than 10 years since the men were demobilised, cases in which disablement by War service can now be justifiably claimed for the first time are, as is admitted on all hands, few in number, and will necessarily become fewer. Old War wounds, thought to have been healed but giving trouble for the first time since the War, are readily identifiable, and are already dealt with both by medical treatment and pensions. New claims in respect of some ailment or disease are more numerous, but comparatively very few cases are found on investigation to be genuinely traceable to War service. The situation is one that requires to be met by provision for a small and diminishing number of genuine cases only."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1929; col. 24, Vol. 232.]
That was the expression of opinion given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich 9 years ago. Every word of it has come, or is

coming, true. That does not mean that the work of the Ministry is in any way lightened, because, as I say, the number of men getting older and suffering in many cases from civilian ailments is not likely to decline. It is the duty of the Ministry of Pensions to give, as we endeavour to do to-day, every opportunity for every man suffering from disabilities which he thinks are due to War service to establish his case. We make our researches for him with the approved societies, with the chemists' shops, with the employers, and in every direction where there may be evidence, to show that his complaint has a continous history. It does happen that in many cases those links cannot be discovered, and that there is a long lapse between the War service and present ailments. Where those long intervals occur, it must be the case that a medical adviser cannot often conscientiously say that the present disability is the result of impairment suffered in the Great War. Unless that system is followed, the sooner we abandon a system of war pensions and call it something else, the better, but as long as this remains a system of war pensions, I am sure that I shall have the support of every Member in insisting on establishing the connection between present ailments and War service.

Mr. Oliver: I put a specific question to the Minister, whether the widow is permitted to make a statement to anyone outside his own officials, and whether his own officials' evidence is accepted without inquiry?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I thought I had indicated that the express purpose of reading the letter was to give an indication of what happened.

Mr. Oliver: But I thought that letter related solely to the War Pensions Committee in Yorkshire.

Mr. Ramsbotham: No, I have other letters dealing with similar procedure in other parts of the country.

2.16 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Although it is unusual to have two Front Bench speeches one after another, it would be discourteous not to say something to the hon. Lady the Member for Springburn


(Mrs. Hardie) who raised another aspect of pensions. In her very moving speech she dealt with certain cases of hardship which exist at the present time. I find it difficult to reply, because though it was possible for the hon. Lady to give us instances, it would be impossible for me to deal with possible remedies which would need legislation without being out of order. I am unable, therefore, to deal fully with the cases she mentioned. I can, however, say that they are known to us and that her speech to-day, which was in terms the House appreciated, will not be lost sight of. The hon. Lady spoke of the total cost of pensions at the present time and used the expression that a great country such as this should be able to afford these services, and I think I would be right in pointing out the total cost of our scheme at the present time and its relation to the whole social service programme.
The position is that while, less than 30 years ago, there were no old age or widows' pensions at all, to-day, over a quarter of our expenditure on social services goes in old age and widows' pensions, and there are 3,500,000 beneficiaries under the scheme. The cost this year is £95,000,000, of which the Exchequer contributes £65,000,000. These figures have greatly increased in recent years and will go on increasing, apart from future legislation or alteration. The gross cost was £27,500,000, 13 years ago, and in 1930 it was £72,000,000. In 40 years' time—and it is necessary that we should look ahead to the time when the young men now in insurance will be approaching the age when they will receive pensions—in 40 years' time, the gross cost of our existing scheme, quite apart from any improvement or alteration, will be £147,000,000, of which £113,000,000 will fall upon the Exchequer.
I have not enlarged on the points made by the hon. Lady, but I would like to say a word to the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). I do not know whether he was present at Question Time, but if he was, he must have heard my announcement that a committee t,, examine the problem of spinsters' pensions has been set up. This committee will, I think, command public respect and confidence and will be able to deal thoroughly with the problems raised.

COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (PUBLICATION OF EVIDENCE).

2.20 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I rise to draw attention to a matter which daily affects the efficient working of Parliament, namely, the growing practice of withholding the evidence of commissions and committees whose reports are laid before this House. The use of commissions and committees to elucidate public matters, on the initiative of the Government, is an integral part of our procedure. In January, 1620, Lord Chancellor Bacon begged King James I to appoint commissions to examine, among other things:
advancing the cloth trade of England, staying treasure within the realm and the reiglement of money; for the provision of the realm with corn and grain and public granaries; for introducing and nourishing manufactures within the realm, for setting people awork, for the improvement of highways and the recovery of drowned lands.
He concluded with these words:
For the good that comes of particular and select committees and commissions, I need not commonplace … it will make many good spirits that we think little of, co-operate in them."—("Works," Vol. VI, p. 250.)
I quote that in order to show the historical importance attaching to departmental committees and to royal commissions. There are five forms of Parliamentary inquiry which involve the taking of evidence. The first is private Bill legislation where the Rules of the House require that all evidence shall be printed and made available on the following day. Secondly, there are Select Committees. The evidence given before them must be printed and laid before the House in due course. Select Committees are not so much in use as they were. Nowadays, Royal Commissions or Departmental Committees have taken their place. I can find no case before 1914 where all the evidence before the Royal Commissions has not been laid before Parliament and printed in full, but in three cases during the last two years, namely, on Durham University, the Tyneside, and Merthyr Tydfil, Royal Commissions have reported without the evidence being printed. In the case of the Tyneside Commissions, I apprehend that real damage has been done for the recommendations of the Commission were not accepted by the Government.
The suggestions for the solution made by the Minister of Health were objected


to by the local authorities. So Parliament is left with a report which is not going to be acted upon and none of the evidence on which Parliament can judge or the Government act. The evidence has indeed been placed in the Library and is available for the Members to consult—3,000 pages of foolscap. It has no index, and when I asked whether an index could be provided, I was told that that was not the usual practice. Important papers are included in this vast bundle of hay, and that is the only available record for Members of this House of the evidence on which the Royal Commission reached their conclusions. I have been informed by the Financial Secretary in some cases that the Treasury decided not to publish evidence on account of cost. I estimate that the cost of duplicating this mass of paper would come to about £400, and the cost of printing it would be £800 or about twice as much, and the net return of the Stationery Office from the sales of evidence is about half the total cost of printing, so that there would have been little extra expense incurred in printing, providing the printing began at the outset. Apart from this, there is no index, and thus valuable State papers are hidden from sight indefinitely. All of us who have had occasion to consult State papers on matters of public policy know that after a lapse of five years the evidence is more important than the report, and I think it is of grave disadvantage that the public should not have access to the material upon which a Royal Commission have based their views.
The fourth form of inquiry is by Departmental Committee and more recently by committees set up by the Prime Minister on the recommendation and under the auspices of the Economic Advisory Council. Here again before 1914 the evidence of departmental committees was almost invariably printed. Since 1920 it has to an increasing extent been withheld, nominally on financial grounds. The responsibility for deciding whether the evidence of a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee is to be printed is not clear to me. When I asked the Home Secretary why he was not printing the evidence of the Stewart Committee on Workmen's Compensation, he replied that it was only in exceptional circumstances that the publication of the evidence given before departmental com-

mittees was authorised and that a strong case would have to be shown to justify a departure from the established practice.
Those are strong words. There is no question there of Treasury sanction. The net cost would never be more than £100 or £200. The evidence of the Departmental Committee on Trade Marks was printed. The evidence of the Committee on Ministers' Powers was printed. The evidence of the Committee on the Cinematograph Films Industry was in due course printed. There was also the evidence of the Cohen Committee on Industrial Assurance, which was published at the grotesque price of £4, making it impossible for more than half-a-dozen copies to be sold, so that for all practical purposes that most valuable evidence was withheld from further knowledge.
That, however, is not the end of the matter. A practice has now grown up of deciding in advance whether evidence shall or shall not be published, and notifying witnesses to that effect. I received a letter from the War Office a few days ago courteously inviting me to give evidence before a committee which was sitting to consider the reform of court-martial procedure. Before the committee had even held its first meeting I was assured that nothing that I said or wrote would be published. There may be good grounds for not publishing such evidence, but it is a matter which ought to be decided by the Secretary of State or put into the terms of reference, or the order for the appointment of the committee or commission when it is announced to the House. I would be glad to see a change in procedure whereby Ministers, when announcing the appointment of committees or commissions, would also announce that the evidence would be printed and published unless, in the opinion of the chairman, any particular piece of evidence should be withheld.
I wish to draw particular attention to the Stewart Committee on Workmen's Compensation, which has just reported. It cost £200 to duplicate the evidence. It could have been printed for about £400, and it would have sold certainly to the extent of £200, so that there would have been no loss. I hope I am committing no breach of confidence in stating that the chairman assured witnesses in advance that their evidence would not be


published. I do not think the report of a committee, however distinguished, consisting for the most part of Government officials and private persons representing trade organisations can be expected to have the full support of this House unless the evidence on which they base their conclusions is before us. Their report is an important and in some ways a surprising document. It frequently refers to "the weight of the evidence," but who is to judge? It mentions that "one or two witnesses" have said a certain thing. Was it one witness or two witnesses, and who were they? Yet the Home Secretary does not see fit to place even a copy in the Library, with the result that we are asked to discuss legislation affecting 18,000,000 persons without any evidence.
This is without precedent as far as workmen's compensation is concerned. There have been five or six Royal Commissions, Departmental Committees, and Select Committees in the last 50 years. In every case the evidence was printed in full and placed before the House with a proper index. I do not doubt that the reason why there has been comparatively little controversy upon previous workmen's compensation Measures was that the interested Members were able to study the evidence. As I have said, the importance of the evidence grows with the years. A report becomes out of date but not the evidence on which it is based. The reason why we made such advances in the 'forties and 'fifties of the last century in dealing with such matters as the employment of children and the protection of workers was not the reports of the Commissioners, excellent as they were, but the terrible nature of the evidence given before them, which convinced people as nothing else could. The measured, careful, moderate phrases of the Commissioners might convince a Department or a Minister, but the artless language of the witnesses in describing the things that were going on and that they could not stop was what moved men to action.
I believe I am doing a service to Parliament and to the country in urging the Government to reconsider the whole question of publishing evidence wherever possible. The Economic Advisory Committee four years ago published an important report on cattle diseases. It was not accompanied by anything more than a list of witnesses. In the absence of the evidence, the report did not carry full

conviction. I believe that little extra cost is involved in printing instead of duplicating these regards, owing to the fact that Stationery Office sales would offset the difference in the cost of production, and I would even suggest that the Stationery Office, to whose efficiency I bear grateful testimony, might be more active in promoting the sales of evidence. I beg the Government to consider the question not merely as one of finance but as one of constitutional practice, and to make it a rule to publish all evidence unless there is good ground to the contrary, and then only to withhold such specific portions of the evidence as cannot wisely be made public. I beg them also to consider embodying specifically in all terms of reference of committees and commissions a definite injunction to the effect that the evidence will be published unless the chairman in any particular case decides otherwise.

2.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: My hon. Friend has raised a point which he has already brought before the House in the form of Parliamentary questions, and he has also had some correspondence with various Government Departments. It may be well if I state again the present rule and practice governing the publication of evidence. The present rule imposes upon the chairman of a committee the responsibility, in the first instance, of deciding whether or not there should be publication of the evidence given before the committee. In the case of a Royal Commission, Treasury sanction is not normally withheld and the evidence then automatically goes for publication. If it is not a Royal Commission but a Departmental Committee Treasury sanction is required. I speak subject to correction, but I cannot find any instance of Treasury sanction being withheld when the chairman has pressed for publication. Equally I have not found an instance of the Treasury insisting upon publication when the chairman has recommended against it. Perhaps it would be too much to expect the watch-dog to show the way to the safe. I think it might be said that generally the Treasury would not stand in the way of publication when the chairman has put it forward unless there was some quite overwhelming reason.
The question of cost to which my hon. Friend referred is a consideration. I agree that the sums stated in relation to our national expenditure are very small indeed; nevertheless, they have to be carefully watched. He was slightly in error as to the cost of duplicating that volume and mass of papers which he has beside him on the bench. The cost of duplicating that evidence in the case of the Tyneside Commission amounted to £165, whereas it is estimated that printing would have cost £800. It is hard to say how far sales would have offset that cost. They might have done so to some extent, but it was the view of the chairman that they would not have done so to any great extent because it was a commission affecting a local area, though I agree that there was some interest in the general problem. I do not press the question of cost too far, because when we deal with national expenditure we speak of millions and hundreds of millions, and here we are speaking of £165 and £800. Nevertheless, it is proper for the Treasury to have regard for what might be in some cases useless expenditure in the printing of evidence for which there was no public demand.
My hon. Friend asked how long the present rule has been in operation. It was introduced almost 20 years ago. As my hon. Friend has pressed the point—and I attach importance to any point which he brings forward in the House with his great experience—I would say that there has not been a general demand expressed for any change in the present rule. The Government would have to be convinced of two things before a general change were made, namely, that the rule was working unsatisfactorily and that there was in fact a demand for a change. I listened with interest and attention to my hon. Friend, but I must make those observations from my knowledge of the situation as I see it.
He also spoke of the question of confidential evidence. There, again, I do not think that we can generalise, but there must obviously be some cases where there is a value to be obtained from confidential information and there must be some discretion resting upon someone to decide whether it should be withheld from general publication. We have felt that the right person in the first instance to pronounce on that point is the chairman

of the commission, though there is also a Ministerial responsibility which we do not shirk. I can do no more to-day, after having heard the views of my hon. Friend, and having assured him that we have in mind the desire to make the work of commissions and committees of the greatest possible value, than to say that in general I am not convinced that the working of the rule on the whole is unsatisfactory; but I will certainly bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has put forward.

GERMANY (PROPAGANDA AND REFUGEES).

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I rise to call attention to the question of German propaganda, with particular reference to its activities in this country, and also to the question of German refugees here and elsewhere. I have a great admiration for the German people and for their past history. They have rendered immense services to art, culture and science, and I desire nothing better than that they should play their full part in the world, making their immense contribution to the cause of humanity as a whole. I must, I am afraid, for the time being, differentiate between the German people and the particular Government of which at the moment they happen to be the prisoners. It may be that the present situation is due to faults which we in this country have made in policy since the War. I fully agree that we and other countries share that responsibility. It does not, however, alter the fact that we are faced with a very sinister and unhealthy situation and have to be aware of the serious danger which is threatening us all.
It is not our duty to criticise the internal administration of any other country in so far as it is purely internal and does not affect any country outside, but I am afraid that the whole development of German policy on its internal side, and on its external side too, seems to be a menace to world peace and to the safety of the British Empire. The whole of their energies seems to be directed towards the triumph of naked force, and they are prepared to go ahead and to strike down ruthlessly any obstacle that there may be in its course. The methods employed are very subtle and clever and quite unscrupulous, and they are often put up as



a smoke screen to hide the real intent from well-disposed persons who are perhaps not always on the look-out for what lies behind.
I will not give any individual cases, because there are obvious dangers to the persons concerned which cannot possibly be overlooked. I have very carefully examined all the evidence which lies behind the examples which I shall give, and I can assure the House that I am satisfied that the general remarks which I shall make are well-founded. Many of the methods that are adopted are in themselves quite innocuous. They are not methods that can really be objected to in themselves by any Government, but, taking them in conjunction with what lies behind them, I think they are very serious. My object to-day is very largely to open people's eyes and make them aware of what is going on, and to try and secure that the utmost vigilance will be exercised by all citizens in this country, and by the Government too, in so far as they are called upon to act in the matter. It is very difficult for us in this country to believe that the things that are done and the methods that are employed are what they, in fact, are, because we are so kindly, tolerant, and well-meaning that we are inclined to impute to others the qualities which we ourselves have developed to a very large degree. There are many examples of societies existing in this country for the cultivation of good will between the two nations. In itself that is obviously a most admirable thing, but in my view it is impossible to cultivate any genuine friendship with a regime which is utterly opposed to all the ideals for which we stand in such matters as liberty, tolerance, fair play, self-government, and general kindliness between human beings of all sorts and conditions and of all races.
I will turn to the actual methods to which I desire to call attention and take, first of all, the case of journalists and others. It is a fact that journalists in this country, London or provincial, can enjoy in Germany, almost free of charge a holiday lasting for perhaps a month, be given a great time, be feted, be taken from one part of the country to the other, and given a very wonderful impression of everything over there. I might say that they will not be taken to the concentration camps. They will not have an opportunity of a conversation with Pastor

Niemoller, nor will they be permitted to visit Herr von Schuschnigg in the concentration camp to which he has been sent at Dachau. All that sort of thing is carefully guarded from the eyes of visitors. Not only journalists but Ministers of any denomination, schoolmasters, in fact anybody exercising any sphere of influence in this country, can have a really magnificent time in Germany, practically free of charge.
There are also well known and, superficially, very desirable exchange visits between workpeople from factories and schoolboys and schoolgirls. Of course, the whole object of it—and it is very clever propaganda—is to create the impression in this country that the Nazi régimeis a splendid, generous, popular kind of thing, just the sort of thing that we in this country would approve, and that it will thereby—that is the object—make it possible for us to co-operate with them and cause us to cast a friendly eye on their activities in the development of their foreign policy and their forceful seizure of whatever they may desire.
Then there is Press penetration. The method adopted is that streams of articles bearing the names of distinguished Englishmen and Germans are offered to periodicals of all kinds in this country. For example, one of the signatories of these articles is General von der Goltz, who was recently refused permission to come into this country, and who has such an interesting glycerine factory in Gravesend. These articles are offered free and are an effective way of belauding Germany. After the articles have been offered there follows, at a suitable interval, an offer of an entirely different type, namely, the offer of lucrative advertisements, travel, commercial or industrial, of considerable financial value to the periodicals concerned. If, however, any of the newspapers do not see their way to accept the signed articles which are sent to them, they never under any circumstances receive any of the advertisements.
I am not suggesting that such well-known journals as the "Times" are influenced by anything of this kind. We know that the Berlin-Cliveden-Printing-House-Square axis is based on a foundation of sincere and disinterested good will. This sort of propaganda is, however, dangerous as affecting the Press in general, although I do not suggest that it will have much effect in a country


like ours. It is well that we should keep our eyes open and realise the kind of temptations that are being insidiously offered. I am informed that in Belgium the process has gone very far. The grip on the Press there is pretty considerable. In Holland it has gone some way, although they are finding it rather a more tough proposition in Holland than in Belgium.
Then there is the question of servant girls and more often educated girls who come over here from Germany as helps and companions who, before coming here, go through a special propaganda course at some centre in Germany, where they are instructed exactly what to say and how to belaud the Nazi régimein any family in which they may find themselves. It may be said that that is a very proper thing to do, and that we ought to talk in the same way of our own country if we go abroad. That is true, if it is genuine and purely disinterested, but this action by the German girls is not disinterested. In many cases these girls come over through an evasion of the law, which I am sure the Home Office will do all that they can to check. They say that they are not coming here to work for reward, but as soon as they get in they work for payment, and in many cases to which my attention has been drawn where they have been in a specific job they have said, "I am not going to remain with you; I am going somewhere else." This is a matter to which I am sure the Home Office will give careful attention.
There is another danger to which I would call attention. I believe it to be true that some of these girls are employed as spies. There are many of them in the families of the officers of the armed Forces in the Aldershot area and elsewhere, and I suggest that the Service Departments and the Home Office should look into this matter very carefully from that point of view. All these girls, in fact all German subjects over here, are under very strict and careful control; a sort of imperium in imperio. They are under a double police system—the British police and the German police. The Gestapo has got its hold in this country on all the people of German nationality. They are all expected to keep in touch with the Consulates and to report directly; if they do not do so, or if they act in any way which

is considered unfriendly or critical of the Nazi régime, and the news gets back to Berlin, they may lose such property as they have over there, and their relatives and friends may be persecuted and lose their jobs.
It may be interesting to the House to know how far-reaching the organisation is over here. I happen to have a list of the April meetings of one of the German associations in this country, which all German subjects are expected to attend. If they do not attend the meetings, there is a black mark against them, and they have to look out for trouble. I will give the April meetings, on various dates. I will take first the German Workers' Front, London Group, Great Britain. Meetings are being held at the Queen's Restaurant and the Porchester Hall, London, The Boot, Baldock, Hitchin, 46, Eaton Rise, W.5, and again at the Queen's Restaurant and the Porchester Hall. Meetings are held in connection with such interesting events as the foundation festival of the group, or the Fuhrer's birthday, or the day of national work. There are other gatherings, conversaziones, and functions of that kind at the Tatler's Tearoom, Brighton, 46, Eaton Rise again, the Ben Hill Adult School, Sutton, 46, Eaton Rise, and 28, Cleveland Terrace, and again at the Tatler's Tearoom, Brighton. Some of these are for select groups of shopkeepers and people connected with hotels.
I think it will be admitted that these are pretty formidable organisations for persons of German nationality who are resident in this country, free residents in this country enjoying our laws, who are called upon, practically compelled, to adhere to these methods of German propaganda, otherwise they are liable to pain and suffering if and when they go back to Germany, or they suffer through their friends and relatives in Germany. The same kind of pressure was applied in the case of those persons who took part in that farcical mock election of Sunday last. All those who went on the joy ride in the ship were strongly pressed to do so, and it was made clear to them that if they did not, it would be the worse for them. A so-called plebiscite held under such conditions can make no impression whatever in a free country like ours. We quite understand how it was organised, and we quite understand that there was no real choice or liberty in the matter. The figures themselves prove it—99.5 per


cent. Surely there were some who were sick and otherwise prevented from voting. If I was going to have an impressive figure, I should not have arranged for 99.5 per cent. A smaller figure would have been much more credible.
The whole thing was a farce. I think it was a piece of impertinence to send a ship over here to carry out that kind of thing in the case of people who are residing on British soil. If we want to see a real plebiscite carried out, we can see it day after day in this country, in Ipswich, in West Fulham, and to show that I do not want to score a party point, in the City of London also, where the Government candidate was unopposed. But I think the Government ought to consider whether the Gestapo should not be cleared out of this country altogether. Surely the British police are perfectly capable of looking after all citizens in the country, whether they are British or foreign. We do not require the assistance of any foreign police, least of all the hated Gestapo from Germany.
Let me come to the question of the refugees and the way in which they are being treated. It is almost impossible to grasp the mentality of those persons who are dealing out this treatment to refugees. They seem to be filled with a sort of sadistic hatred, a desire to follow these refugees with all the vindictive fury possible, wherever they may be. They not only turn them out of Germany but make them suffer wherever they may be. As a result of the pressure which can now be applied by Germany outside her frontiers in such countries as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland, the door to these refugees is now almost closed. They can only go to Switzerland as a means of transit to other countries. There is this further danger, that Gestapo agents masquerade as refugees, and the greatest care has to be exercised by those who have to look after the interests of refugees to see that some of these persons are not German police themselves, who are there to find out and report what is done. It is a terrible thing to think that this sort of thing is taking place.
In this country there are firms engaged in doing business with Germany, and if

perhaps they have a German Jew employed, they are informed that they must dismiss the man or they will lose the business. That is an intolerable interference which ought never to be permitted. I know of an organisation which was formed for assisting academic German refugees to obtain work, which has been got hold of by Nazi sympathisers and used for the opposite purpose of persecuting them. In South America the same intimidation and pressure are being exercised against refugees. In the case of Chile, there is an arrangement by which Germany takes Chilean nitrates and in return Chile does not take any German refugees
I do not have many opportunities of congratulating the Government, but I am glad to do so when the opportunity arises, and I think the Government have shown a liberal and wise spirit in the interpretation of the regulations regarding the admission of Austrian refugees. They are being permitted to come in in a way which is in accordance with the splendid traditions of this country; and I hope it will be maintained. If there is any difficulty in finding room for Austrian refugees in this country, owing to the number of foreigners and the state of employment, why not send back some of the German Nazis who are over here and who prefer Germany? These poor people have very few spots on the earth to which they can go. I am glad the Under-Secretary said so clearly at Question Time to-day that there is no obligation on any German or ex-Austrian citizen who is in this country to go to any of the consulates and register under the German Registration Act of last February. I can assure him that there is great anxiety among large numbers of these poor people in this country. May I read an extract from a letter from one of them?
It would be a mental reprieve for many half despaired refugees if they only got some sort of official assurance that there would be no misunderstanding of the attitude they adopt in refusing to fill in a questionnaire and to give to the Nazi Government of Germany information which is neither in their own interest nor in the interest of the country which at present grants them its hospitality and shelter.
This is the sort of questions which these people are being asked to answer when they visit the consulates:


Can you drive a motor car?
What languages do you speak?
Where have you been living in Germany before coming to Great Britain?
When did you leave Germany?
How are you earning your living in Great Britain?
Are you an employé?
The name and address of your employer?
What are your social contacts regarding membership of any association?
The names of the associations?
It is perfectly clear that if that information is going to be given by German refugees, it may have the most serious consequences for the man and for his family who may be in Germany, and I beg the Home Office to do everything they can to assist these poor people. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what is the position of former Austrian subjects who have now to adopt a particular type of German nationality. If they do not choose to go to the consulates, do they become Stateless? It is very important that we should know. They do not automatically become German subjects, and they are not Austrian subjects. If they do not choose to become nationalised, do they become Stateless and, therefore, permitted to remain in this country? The position of a Stateless person has many disadvantages, but it has this advantage, that he cannot be turned out of the particular country where he is residing.
I have ventured to call attention to these points because I think it is in the public interest that everybody should realise what is taking place in dark and devious and sometimes superficially attractive ways. I have no hatred of Germany; I have nothing but good will towards that country. I hope that in the course of time the better elements, which I am sure exist on an immense scale there, will find their way to the top. Hitlerism is a terrible but only a passing phase. Although we do not desire to keep down Germany in any way, we certainly do not desire to be kept down by Germany. I hope that in the near future Germany will find her true place as an equal in the family of nations.

3.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to make a few remarks on this very important matter. I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will not deny that Nazi organisation exists in London and throughout Britain and is not

only carrying on active propaganda, but pursuing a system of terror directed against any German people who have the opportunity of working for a living here. It is of no use the Home Secretary saying that the Germans living here do not have to go to the consulate or answer the questions that are put to them. The Germans living in this country are here on conditions laid down by the Home Office. It may be that they have permission to be here for three months, six months or 12 months, but at any time that permission may be withdrawn, and any unfortunate German who has refused to register at the consulate or to give the information for which he was asked, and who then has his permission to remain here withdrawn, is sent back to Germany to prison or to death. The Home Office know that.
It is not enough for the Home Secretary to say that it is not necessary in this free country for those people to answer the questions put to them. It is the responsibility of the Home Office and the Government to see that no other Government have a right of any kind to interfere with anyone in this country or to make him go to the consulate and answer questions. As a matter of fact, there are Members of the House who are prepared to look upon such interference without the slightest protest because those who are responsible for the interference represent reaction. I ask the Under-Secretary whether the Home Office would for one moment dream of tolerating in London a political organisation of Russian Communists carrying on propaganda and political activities. I remember that some years ago there were certain suspicions that the Russians were making propaganda here. What happened? The then Home Secretary organised a burglary squad to go to Arcos with acetylene lamps and blow open a safe in order to obtain documents to find out whether such a thing was happening. Are the Home Office prepared to send men with acetylene lamps to the German Consulate or to any of the organisations of Nazis in this country? Never under any circumstances would there be any toleration of political activities in this country on the part of any foreign Government unless it was some sort of propaganda that was acceptable to hon. Members opposite.
I can say from my complete knowledge that never at any time has there been any "Russian" Communist propoganda in


this country. The Communists in this country are quite capable of doing all the Communist propaganda that is necessary here. Very often Members think of me as somehow or other representing Russia, but I am a Britisher, and I represent a constituency in this country. I remember making a statement that if an hon. Member would stop certain contractors from getting profits, I would get the Russians to reduce the price of timber. That was a mistake. Because I said that, people have been writing to me pointing to this, that, and the other thing in connection with Russia. But I have nothing to do with the Russian Government, and I cannot intervene with the Russian Government on behalf of anyone or anything. I belong to a political party in Britain that is concerned with Britain, and we will do all the Communist propaganda that is necessary. We do not want anyone else doing it for us.
The Home Office would never for a moment tolerate either the Russian Government or any other Government setting up political organisations in this country to carry on political propaganda, and I am certain that if any Russian White—and there is a large number of them in London—or any Russian at all were to go to the Home Office, or if a question were raised here in this House that the Russian Government, through their agents in this country, were trying to intimidate any Russians in London, there would be a terrific row. I ask the Under-Secretary of State if that is not the case. Would the Home Office tolerate for a moment any Government other than the German Government interfering in any way or trying to intimidate any nationals who happened to be in this country? It is time this sort of thing was stopped, and it is not enough to say to these unfortunate people who are having to suffer, "You are in a free country," unless you also say to them, to every man and woman who refuses to go to the Consulate and sign these things, that you, the British Government, will stand by them and that they can remain here as long as they want to do so. To say that they are in a free country and to encourage them to refuse to go to the Consulate, and then, it may be in six months or a year, to send them back to Germany, is not good enough. What is awaiting them there?
It is the responsibility of the Home Office and the Government to put an end at once to this interference on the part of the German Government with people in this country. It is the responsibility of the Home Office to say that such a thing as has happened in connection with the plebiscite shall never be allowed to recur. People who come here as refugees, or for an ordinary livelihood, have a right to live while they are in this country without interference of any kind. They should never be placed in a position in which they can be threatened or intimidated by the threat of what will happen to them when they go back or of what will happen to their folk at home. I appeal to the Home Office and to the Government to put an end to this sort of thing for good and all. Everybody knows that agents are here and that they are active. As a matter of fact, in Marylebone, the home of Conservatism—it shows you the attitude of mind of the party opposite—the German Nazis are given the let of the new public hall, and it is refused to the British Communists. On two occasions the German Nazis have had this public hall and quite openly have flaunted their standing in London, swaggering in and out of the place as though they had already got a good foothold in London, and when the Marylebone Council, one of the most exceptionally Conservative councils, is prepared to give the new public hall to the German Nazis, no action is taken. This is a very serious matter. Read the speech that General Smuts made a week or two ago on what is happening in Africa, and stop this before it goes too far here. It is not only a question of the freedom and welfare of the German and Austrian residents here, but of the freedom and welfare of the British people.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

3.16 p.m.

Major Rayner: I am told that the authorities are rather worried about the slowness of the recruitment for air-raid precautions and are considering offering further inducements to the public. I suggest that the only inducement necessary is that the public should be told the whole truth. I would suggest that our Ministers, particularly the Minister of Defence, might do rather more in that connection. The public should be told that in face of armed and aggressive nations our national effort is hopelessly


inadequate. We in Great Britain have two main objectives—to keep the peace of Europe and to rebuild the League of Nations. Unless our people are willing to do something more than just put their hands in their pockets I feel that we shall not obtain either of those objects. The dictator States know that we are rich and that we can spend untold gold on armaments, but they know that they have a long start of us and that for the moment they can arm much faster than we can. They also realise that in these days of air fleets and air warfare armament is as much a matter of morale as of equipment, and they rather wonder whether we will submit to sacrifice and discipline sufficiently to make our armaments really effective.
I do not think that that is to be wondered at because they are very proud of their own efforts. The young German is on his toes, fit and eager and willing to follow the Feuhrer wherever he leads; the young Italian is sure that Italy has become once again a nation of soldiers and is able to restore the past glories of the Roman Empire; and the young Jap is taught that his country has a divine mission, and he is so ashamed if he fails in one of his examinations, military or otherwise, that he probably commits suicide. Then they turn and look at us. They understand to some extent our national sentiments and our peculiar ability to meet a grave crisis when it arises, but, superficially, what do they see? They see our small Army two-thirds of the strength it was in 1914, and yet to-day not up to strength. They see the Territorial Army, even in these days, still well below establishment, and the grotesque county quotas of our national defence. They see our educational system the most expensive and extensive in the world and they observe that we do nothing in return for the benefits we receive to see that our young men and women are brought up with any sense of duty to the State. They look at our physical training campaign, a campaign which, up to date, is not a success. In spite of the splendid societies which co-operate in it, in spite of the enthusiastic efforts of the Minister of Health, it touches barely a fringe of our population, and fails hopelessly to bring in just those difficult cases which most urgently require its services. They

note that subsidised idleness is the best we can do for the greater part of our unemployed, and that our wonderful labour training camps, which we established at great cost, are seldom, if ever, filled.
Finally, they observe our new Air-Raid Precautions Campaign, which is meant to cover the greatest and most vulnerable target in the world, and which asks merely for some million of volunteers, as against the 12,000,000 who are already trained in Germany. As a back-bencher I do not know, of course, how far that organisation has really gone. It has probably gone a good deal further than it seems to have gone, but the foreigner will see it through the same sort of eyes as a back-bencher, knowing nothing of the inside of the campaign. He would have expected to see a response to the appeal for volunteers rather like the response to a popular issue of stock in the city, which is over-subscribed in two or three days, instead of a trickle of volunteers. He will also have observed that while this country was putting the final polish on large stocks of bombs we haggled for a couple of years on who should pay for air-raid precautions, and he will think with me, although I am perhaps quite wrong, that the average Londoner has to-day, after several crises which might have meant war, no idea of where he can get his gas mask and no idea of how to put it on if he gets it.
Our neighbours, therefore, are bound to underrate us as we are at present. History has told them that more nations are undone by riches than by poverty, and they feel that we have become slack and sloppy, and that our people will not face personal sacrifice. They admit, remembering 1914, that if we were attacked we should jump to it in no half-hearted fashion, but they consider under the present conditions of warfare that they would probably be able to give us a knock-out blow. The dictators have not been reticent as regards their opinions on the value of a knock-out blow. Herr Hitler said not very long ago:
If I should ever want to attack an enemy I should not negotiate and make preparations for months. As I have always done, I should fall upon my enemy suddenly, like lightning striking out of the night.
He gives us a fair warning. What are we going to do about it? I think in the first place that we ought to be rather


ashamed of our national effort in the last two or three years, because it has not been worthy of this country, or of our ideals. I should like the country to be so wide awake to realities that they demanded some system of citizen organisation which meant the brotherly co-operation of high and low, rich and poor, employer and employé, but I fear that is a distant hope, and in the meantime all we can do is to get behind the Minister and do the best we can to make air-raid precautions a really good show.
In that connection I would like to make three suggestions. My first is that we should have far more gas meetings, because they do more than most other things to bring home to the civilian population the urgency of Air-Raid Precautions. The citizen has to understand that in the next war any town may become a strategic objective, which is a polite way of saying that pillage by fire and bomb may be carried to any part of the country. More than ever before, the ordinary man and woman in their home town will become the backbone of the country because they will be in the front line, so to speak, and any panic or disorganisation will be fatal. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will help the Minister in those meetings if asked to do so. I suggest, in the second place, that there is a certain amount of slowness in recruiting, owing to the fact that a lot of men of military age feel that they may do their training and then be called up when war breaks out. Although the Minister has this matter in hand, I feel that more precise instructions might be issued and might be broadcast through the Press. Local authorities are inclined to sit on instructions of that kind for an undue length of time. Thirdly, black-out practice might become more universal, because it brings before the man in the street the urgency of air-raid protection. Finally, I do not think that was is inevitable. Britain, and perhaps only Britain, can save the world from war if she is prepared to make the necessary national effort. Let us make that effort, and convince the world of our undoubted virility, without having to win another war in order to do so.

3.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The three hon. Members who have ad-

dressed the House have ranged rather widely over considerable areas. They have all touched upon certain aspects of Home Office administration, and it might be convenient if I replied to certain of their points at this stage—although I am not in a position to deal with the general arguments which they have advanced. Perhaps it might be true to say that the hon. Gentlemen have been more anxious to place their points of view before the House than to have a detailed reply upon what they have said. I ought to deal first of all with the points relating to aliens administration, as raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I am glad to hear from him that there is one action of the Home Office of which ht approves. I think it is true that the House and the country approve of the attitude of my right hon. Friend on refugees from Austria. Although it is not quite strictly within my sphere of competence, I should like to make one remark about holidays in Germany. We ought to approach a question of that kind with a certain caution, because the provision of cheap holidays is a feature of tourist work in many countries, and in some it is placed upon an official basis. We must not lose sight of the fact that it may well be to the advantage of both countries to encourage it.
Then the hon. Gentleman turned to the question of domestic servants, and asked whether the Home Office were alive to the problems which he mentioned in that connection. I can assure him at once that one of the dangers he has in mind, namely, that German women might come into this country and then take up domestic service, is amply covered by the regulations, under which that is not allowed without special permission. With regard to the other aspects of the question of German servants in this country, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that he provided my right hon. Friend with some information. All I can say is that we are examining that information. We should be very grateful if he could let us have any more, and particularly if it can be as precise as possible, because the question of discretion, which he mentioned, naturally applies in the case of the Home Office.
With regard to the more serious question of Gestapo agents in this country, the hon. Gentleman was particularly anxious lest such agents might get into this


country by being mistaken for or disguised as refugees, and he wondered whether the Home Office would feel able to deal with a situation of that kind. I think it will afford him some satisfaction if I tell him that every alien applying for leave to land is carefully examined at the port of arrival, and this applies, of course, to refugees. The fact that they are refugees, and our policy with regard to refugees, do not involve any relaxation of the existing precautions against aliens who are personally undesirable. I can go further and say that, if an alien were found to be engaged in activities which were inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted, steps would if necessary be taken to get' rid of him or to exclude him when he next wished to pay a visit to this country. On the general question of whether there is any surveillance of Germans in this country by foreign agents, I can only repeat the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave to the House that the position is being very closely watched, and, if there is any evidence that unlawful acts are being committed, action will certainly he taken.
I will conclude this part of the subject by replying specifically to the question which the hon. Gentleman asked me about the position of Austrians as we see it. As the House is aware, these questions of nationality are very complicated, and my reply, therefore, must be in a certain sense guarded, but it is a matter of German law whether Austrians are now regarded as Germans. If, for example, they persistently refuse to register with the German Consulate, there is power to deprive them of German nationality.

Mr. Mander: Is that power in us?

Mr. Lloyd: I am dealing with the German nationality law. The implication of this would appear to be that Austrians are regarded as Germans, and if deprived of German nationality they become, of course, Stateless. If a person—an Austrian, for example—has been admitted to this country for a temporary purpose and refuses to register with a foreign Consulate, and wishes to stay here, his case, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, would be considered on its merits, and the fact that he had not registered would not be a ground in itself for refusing his application to stay.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: What is to become of his old Austrian nationality if he refuses to renounce it?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not prepared to add to what I have said. Nationality law is a very complicated question, because it really depends on two States' national laws, and the interaction of the two is very difficult to explain precisely, especially if one is not a lawyer, as I am not.
I will turn to the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Major Rayner). I entirely appreciate his purpose, which is to stimulate the country to a proper sense of its duty, and to stimulate the Government to a proper sense of its obligations. But I think he is inclined to overpaint the picture—for example, when he compared the figure of 1,000,000 volunteers which my right hon. Friend asked for recently with a figure of 12,000,000 in Germany. Those figures are not comparable. The 1,000,000 in England are actual volunteers, air-raid wardens or auxiliary firemen, or the like, but the figure in Germany includes not only those but members of the general public who have been trained in a knowledge of air-raid precautions for their own protection. The Act laid on the local authorities the duty of not only raising a force of volunteers, but also of giving instruction and advice to the general public. They are now beginning to get on with that work, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that he has not to add many millions to the figure of 1,000,000 volunteers in order to reach comparison with the German figures. I certainly would not despair—indeed, I would anticipate in the future, when the local authorities get into their stride in this matter, that literally millions of people in this country will have received the same instructions as those 12,000,000.
With regard to gas masks, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that nobody in London, for example, knew what a gas mask was, or how to put it on. It has been announced again and again that we have gas masks in London at the present time for the whole of London's population. If there is an emergency, the gas masks are here. It may be true that at present not everybody knows how to put them an, and it is important to put them on. In the Act, of course, it is the duty of the local authority to construct storage


accommodation and instruct the population in how to put the gas masks on. My right hon. Friend has issued a circular, and local authorities are getting on with that good work. Even the countries which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has very much in mind have not got gas masks for the population of their capital cities on the site as we have. Therefore, he is not quite correct in saying that we are so much behind those countries.
On the other hand, I think the hon. Member's suggestions were good ones. We are having public meetings, and a very considerable number of them. It is true that not every public meeting is a vast advertised meeting in the Albert Hall with all the resources of national publicity, but, nevertheless, there are going on in the small towns and villages less advertised, but equally useful, meetings. These meetings are achieving very successful results. With regard to blackouts, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are a very valuable form of exercise. They not only exercise the air-raid precautions organisation but also bring home to the people the whole question of air-raid precautions for the population. We, at the Home Office intend to have more black-outs, and we expect that the air-raid exercises of the black-out will become familiar all over the country in the near future.

FLOODING AND COAST EROSION, NORFOLK.

3.42 p.m.

Viscount Elmley: My purpose in raising the allied subjects of coast erosion and flooding by the sea in Norfolk is to show the very difficult position of the East Norfolk River Catchment Board which has to deal with these matters. Also, I do so, in order to give the Minister a more favourable opportunity of making a statement on this matter than he had when he was in the district last Friday and Saturday. I will not weary the House with a narrative of the sequence of events, because that has been reported in the Press, and a most excellent article dealing with the subject appeared in "Country Life" on 26th March. I would observe that it has only been by the greatest good luck that there has been no loss of livestock or life, and it is only because of the fine weather last March that greater damage was not done. I now turn to the

main results of the flood. About 20 square miles of amble and grazing land have been put out of action for at least three years. That brings me to my first request to the Minister, and this is one in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie), who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, is interested, as he is chairman of the agriculture commit tee of the Norfolk County Council. It is this: Would the Minister be so good as' to instruct the county agricultural organiser to co-operate with the people concerned in seeing what is the best way to bring this land back into cultivation?
Now I come to the point where I have to break a lance with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I understand that they would not like the Government to take any measures to help landowners, or what the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) has called the landowning class. They are taking a very narrow view. To start with, the North Sea, unlike hon. Members opposite, is no respecter of classes, and the people who have suffered most from these floods have been 150 agricultural labourers and their families. It is these same people who stand to lose most if the flooding continues. Then there is the question of time. Since the land which is flooded is lower than the sea, the flood water can only get away through the rivers and has to make a 22-mile journey back to the sea. On the way it has already killed tens of thousands of fish and made the water undrinkable for livestock, and there is a fear that when warmer weather comes the wells may be affected, and that there will be the risk of an outbreak of fever.
I come to the financial side. Unfortunately the catchment board has already spent £13,000 on a temporary scheme which proved abortive. The Minister, I understand, offered a grant of 60 per cent., on which I shall have a word to say later. Now they have to spend £60,000 on another temporary scheme, but this is by no means the end of the story. Besides Horsey, where this trouble has occurred, many other places are threatened, and it is calculated that in the near future they will have spent £500,000 in making their 10 miles of coastline seaworthy, including the construction of a sea wall in one place, and also groynes. That there is no short cut and no cheap way to adequate sea defences is profoundly true.
I turn for a. moment to the question of erosion. At a place called Walcot in the last six years 63 feet of cliff have fallen into the sea, six bungalows have gone, and many more buildings are threatened, including a convalescent home belonging to the Kettering Urban District Council. The main Yarmouth-Cromer road has been destroyed for 100 yards and will have to be replaced. In spite of all this, the lord of the manor is exercising his right to remove shingle in large quantities from the beach. Before the removal of shingle started there was no erosion. The catchment board have a by-law prohibiting the removal of shingle, but they have been advised by eminent counsel that, although they could prosecute any other person for it, their by-law is not strong enough to prevail against the right of the lord of the manor. The property owners are mostly people of small means, and hesitate to start an action in the courts in defence of their property. It is an illogical and absurd position that the catchment board should have to stand idly by, while damage is being done which in the long run they will have to put right at great expense. Therefore, I feel justified in asking the Minister to give an undertaking that he will consult the Attorney-General to see whether that state of things cannot be ended.
I come back to the question of finance. It should not be forgotten that the catchment board are primarily a land drainage authority, and it is calculated that in the 'next few years they may have to spend another £500,000 on dealing with the tidal rivers in their area. It may well be asked: How can they meet these staggering costs? Their only internal resource is a twopenny rate, for which they precept on the internal drainage boards, county councils, and county boroughs in their area. To deal only with what has happened at Horsey will involve an increase of the rate to 3¾d. In Norfolk the financial position is not as good as it is in Essex. In Essex a penny rate raises £20,000, in Norfolk it only raises £8,300. I saw a report in a newspaper the other day that the Minister had made a grant of £1,000,000 to the authorities in Essex for coast defence. If this is so, I think there is every reason why he should do the same in Norfolk, where the need is much greater. The Royal Commission

of 1911 found, among other things, that on the whole more land is being gained from the sea every year than is being lost to it. That may still be so in the country in general, but it is certainly not true of Norfolk to-day. A great deal of land is going at Pakefield, Cromer, and elsewhere.
I would remind the Minister of Agriculture of two facts. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence said in this House the other day that 30,000 acres of agricultural land had gone for use as aerodromes, factories and so forth. The arable acreage of this country is 13 per cent. less than it was in 1914. Surely, in the very unfortunate position in which the world is to-day, it is true to say that we need every possible square inch of land that is capable of growing things in this country. It may be true, as the "Times" suggested in a leading article recently, that the general level of the country is sinking. If that be so, the position needs very careful consideration.
I hope that I have said enough to show that what has happened in Norfolk is a unique case. For instance, never before has land been flooded with salt water for such a very long time. There was a case about three years ago where some land was flooded for only three days. Already this land has been under water for about seven weeks. Unique cases demand unique treatment, and even if legislation is necessary, I hope that that will not deter the Government from taking action. Rather unfortunately, when I have been dealing with Government Departments recently, I have had the reply from several Ministers that certain proposals cannot be undertaken because they would involve legislation. That is a very useless and miserable plea to put forward. The logical conclusion is that it means that the House of Commons is becoming useless, and that it might as well not exist. No doubt this question ought to have been thought about in the past, and I am only asking that that thought which should have been given to it in the past should be given to it now. I hope that no responsible Minister will get up in this House, either this afternoon or at any future time, and say that proposals cannot be entertained merely because they involve legislation. Unless active measures are taken, a far worse condition may occur in regard to which what has happened already will be a flea


bite. Bearing all these things in mind, I ask for the sympathetic and practical assistance of His Majesty's Government.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Harbord: I wish to thank the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) for his information and his speech on behalf of our county of Norfolk. He has made a valuable contribution to a subject which is engaging the close attention of all Norfolk people. They have suffered two recent blows by coast erosion, and in this matter I share his opinion that the Government have not done their full duty in giving the necessary assistance which they could easily have afforded by sending engineers in goodly numbers who could have done the necessary work of reformation and protection which would have saved the second flooding. The town with which I am connected approached the East Norfolk Drainage Committee and the sister town of Lowestoft, and requested them to lend their civic engineers to the catchment board for purposes of consultation in connection with the work that has to be undertaken. What I am afraid of is that the small amount of money which the Government are prepared to place at the disposal of the catchment authority may lead to a scamping of the work and to ineffective work, which will cause the coast line to be subject to further attack.
In some respects, we were fortunate in that the floods were not accompanied by the winds which sometimes accompany them, for if there had been those winds, one cannot tell where the damage would have ended. There ought to be promptly a survey of the Norfolk coast, and the danger points ought to be scheduled and the Government advised about them. We are told that our shores should be inviolate from foreign attack, but here we have an attack from the sea which renders useless for the time being land which is used for cattle grazing and for the raising of agricultural produce which in time of war this country would so much need. Surely, there is there a new condition which calls for a revision of the old reply of the Government that it is not the Government's responsibility; and surely they ought to incur expenditure on protection against erosion. It is in the national interest, from the point of view of the maintenance of the present agricultural production and increased produc-

tion, that that new situation should be provided for by Government assistance.
I term as niggardly and insufficient for the purpose the amount which the Government are prepared to offer at the present time. I am afraid it will lead to the work being insufficient to render the coastline safe from further attack. I want that work, when it is done, to be permanent and to prevent the danger from ever arising again. I can visualise work similar to that which has been done elsewhere, where 14-feet steel piles have been put in as a foundation and an upper wall built. Let us have that done in Horsey. Let the danger points of Norfolk be scheduled. I am just as much an advocate of the protection of other parts of the coastline as well as that of Norfolk. I maintain that in the changed conditions which now exist it is in the national interest, as it is in the interests of the people who have been flooded out of their homesteads, their farms and their small holdings and whose cattle has had to be removed as though there were a foreign invasion, that the Government should prevent in every possible way such a danger from recurring by granting the necessary financial assistance.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley) for raising this important subject, and I found myself entirely in agreement with his speech, except for one part, in which, for some reason, he included part of my constituency, Pakefield, in the county of Norfolk. I wish to make an appeal to the Minister. I realise that on an occasion such as this, one cannot suggest fresh legislation, but a great deal more can be done in the future than in the past by administrative action, by increasing the grants given to the catchment board and possibly by amending the block grants.
I want to put the position before the Minister of Agriculture. I represent the Borough of Lowestoft. It may be asked what interest has Lowestoft in this area of East Norfolk which is threatened with an expenditure of £500,000. Lowestoft has a keen financial interest, because it has to pay part of the cost of that expenditure. As a matter of fact, Lowestoft is in a very anomalous position. It has spent over £250,000 in coast defence during the last 15 years, and last night


the borough council passed an additional expenditure of £68,000, making an expenditure of £318,000 in 16 years, for a town of 45,000 people. It will be admitted that this is a very heavy burden, but I want to point out that in addition to this crushing burden Lowestoft is included in the East Norfolk Catchment Board area, and is rated for expenditure in that area including the district of Horsey. My hon. Friend has pointed out that this expenditure may rise to £500,000, and in addition there is expenditure on rivers which may be another £500,000. Lowestoft has to pay its own share of all this tremendous expenditure 20 miles to the north and 20 miles inland.
But that is not all. Lowestoft is also rated by the East Suffolk County Council, and five miles south of Lowestoft there is an expenditure of £30,000 at Kessingland and 12 miles south a further expenditure of another £30,000 by the East Suffolk Catchment Board for Southwold Harbour. Therefore, you have this position, that Lowestoft which has expended £318,000 in 15 years on coast defences has to pay its share of an expenditure 20 miles north of about £500,000, and also its share of an expenditure 12 to 15 miles south of about £60,000. I submit with confidence that this is an extremely hard position, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that by a flexible use of the administrative machinery he should increase the grant to meet an exceptionally hard position. I also want to support my hon. Friend in his remarks about the removal of shingle from Walcot Gap.
During the last few days a meeting was held to consider the heavy expenditure incurred by the local authority, and I think it was the chairman who estimated that there had been a vast amount of shingle removed from Walcot Gap. He used these words, but for the accuracy of the estimate I do not vouch. He said that enough shingle had been removed to make a mountain as big as Mont Blanc. The Minister ought to consider carefully whether it is not possible by administrative action to regulate and control the removal of shingle where there is danger of sea erosion. Having lived on the coast for 35 years, I know that it is said you can move as much shingle as you like from the coast, because there is always the north to south movement of shingle along the east coast, which will

bring it back and pile it up. There is something in that statement, but the danger is that while in normal times you. can perhaps do it and you can keep taking shingle away, you suddenly get a succession of bad scours and that is the time when you want the shingle that has been removed, and if it is not there you get disaster. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point.
I do not advocate that in all cases of sea defence the Minister should take exceptional measures and give exceptional grants, but I do advocate that every possible flexibility of the machinery of administration should be used to help where there is a proved case of exceptional hardship and expenditure and of exceptional future risks, as in the case which my Noble Friend has brought forward. If my right hon. Friend replies that administrative action is not enough to secure that end, then I heartily support my Noble Friend's suggestion that legislation should be introduced.

4.7p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am sure that the whole House will appreciate the action of my Noble Friend and of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), who has supported him, in raising this subject and drawing attention to the very distressing local calamity that has occurred. I am sure the House would like me to express our sympathy with those who have been so unfortunate as to suffer from the consequences of this breach in the sea wall at Horsey. My Noble Friend said that he was concerned with two subjects, namely, coast erosion and flood prevention. Coast erosion is a subject for the Board of Trade, as a rule. The only occasions when questions of coast erosion fall within the purview of my Department are when the activities of a catchment board are involved. It happens sometimes that sea defence works, which are properly local matters arising under the Board of Trade——

Viscount Elmley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whenever I have raised this question with the Board of Trade, they have always denied responsibility and referred me to his Department?

Mr. Loftus: Is it not a fact that in every case, at Southwold, Kessingland and Horsey the catchment board is concerned with coast defence?

Mr. Morrison: I am coming to that, and hon. Members will then see where the administrative responsibility lies. It frequently happens that coast defence works are undertaken not only with the object of protecting the land from the sea, but in order to protect the outfall of a drainage system which is under a catchment board. As at Horsey this matter of coast protection is one of the responsibilities of the catchment board, it ranks for grants from my Department, as do other operations of the catchment board. In this particular case the catchment board concerned is the Norfolk Rivers Catchment Board, and they have never attempted to evade their responsibility. They did certain work, but unfortunately the attempt to repair the damage that has been done has not been attended with the best of luck. The sea broke through first of all on 12th February. Works were put in hand and the damage was being repaired, but two extraordinarily high tides occurred in succession, accompanied by a strong wind, and the result was that the work that had been done proved insufficient, and the area was flooded again.
I would like to reply at this stage to one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord)—and that is the only substantial criticism that there has been of the administration on this matter—who suggested that we ought to have done something by way of sending troops or engineers or something of the kind to the threatened area to supplement the activities of those who were on the spot and to ensure that the work was done properly. I well remember, when the breach took place, communicating late at night with the catchment board to find out whether there was any shortage of material or labour that the action of the Government might supplement. I was then assured that in fact there was plenty of labour and material on the spot and that there was no necessity what soever for such exceptional action. It ought to be made clear to the House, and I am sure it is, that the catchment board is an independent statutory body created by the Act of 1930, and that the functions of the Ministry in connection with it are those of giving grants for approved schemes and advice on occasions of this sort. But I would like the House to feel assured that from the time when this danger started we kept in touch with the

catchment board, and had there been, as there was on the occasion of the floods on the Great Ouse a year ago, any request or suggestion from the local authority that State help in this form would be agreeable to them, it would have been granted at once; but that was not the view taken at the time.
On the point of sending soldiers down there, I would like to say that in fact this work is very valuable to those who are unemployed in the district. They are men who have a local knowledge of this sort of work, and I have always taken the view that if there are plenty of local men on the spot, with local knowledge, anxious to earn honest wages for important work, the catchment board should be allowed to employ them in its own discretion without the step always being taken of sending soldiers to the spot. The main use which we have found of sending armed forces has been to maintain communications by means of wireless and so on.

Mr. Harbord: Was not a little other help, trained help, necessary?

Mr. Morrison: That does not gainsay what I have said, that after the disaster I was informed by the catchment board that there was plenty of labour on the spot and plenty of material, and unless I had taken the extraordinary step of thinking that that information was wrong, I do not see how I could have come to any other conclusion. In fact, there was plenty of labour and material on the spot at the time, and the catchment board were perfectly right in giving me the information which they did. Their own work, as I have said, has not been attended with the best of luck, and consequently this second calamity uccurred.
Now I will say a word or two about other matters that have been raised. The first point raised by my Noble Friend was the problem of getting the land right again after it had been subjected to sea water. It has been very difficult sometimes to recover land from that position, not only because of the effect of the salt in the soil itself, but frequently sea water has a curious effect on the texture of the soil and makes it very difficult to apply again to the purposes of husbandry in the normal way. I can assure my Noble Friend that we have already foreseen the necessity of action in the matter and that steps have already been taken, jointly,


by the Director of the Norfolk Experimental Station and the Advisory Department of the School of Agriculture at Cambridge to ascertain how the damaged land can be most quickly and effectively brought back into cultivation. That work is going on, and I hope it will be of help to those concerned.

Mr. Harbord: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department adequately considered the question of the water supply of the district and the neighbourhood and its protection against the danger of pollution?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member must understand that questions of public health are for the local authority to deal with, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Harbord: But the Government have a certain amount of responsibility.

Mr. Morrison: The Government do not seek to deny their responsibility, but there is an appropriate organisation of the Government for dealing with that question. I am not concerned in this matter with public health, but I have no doubt that the public health authorities will pay attention to it, and, if they desire any Government assistance, they will no doubt communicate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
My Noble Friend's second point was in regard to financial assistance. The way that works was explained by Lord Addison in introducing the Act under which we are working. He said that assistance to the catchment board would be granted on the principle that the grants would be apportioned according to the needs and resources of the district. That is the principle which has been uniformly adopted. In the present case I informed the catchment board that grants of 60 per cent. would be available for the schemes that they put forward. I would ask the House, when it considers this question of the relation between local and national authorities in matters of this character, to remember that while the whole nation will sympathise with Horsey in this disaster, flood prevention and coastal defence are to some extent to a local matter, and that there are limits to which we can ask other districts to contribute as taxpayers to the necessities of one locality. I do not say that we would not be pre-

pared to consider sympathetically everything that can be done, but we have to remember that people living in other parts of England and Scotland have their own local problems to be solved with their own money, and that there is a limit to which we can ask people living in other parts to shoulder as taxpayers the burdens of a particular locality in addition to their own.

Viscount Elmley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a limit to which local taxpayers can go?

Mr. Morrison: I thought that that was implicit in what I said when I said that the need of the district was one of the principles on which the appropriate grant was determined. Any scheme that is put forward by the catchment board for a grant in order to assist this problem will receive instant and sympathetic consideration. I cannot in advance pledge myself to any particular action. I must decide that when I have seen the scheme. There have been resignations on the part of some of the officers of this catchment board and new ones have been appointed. Until I see the new scheme I cannot pledge the Government to any particular action in regard to it, but, in so far as sympathy and speedy consideration are concerned, I can and do promise them most willingly.
I would make a reference to other matters that have been raised in this connection. There is the question of the removal of shingle. It is, of course, a legal problem, a matter of the rights of the lord of the manor and of the catchment board. I understand the catchment board have received legal advice and that under their by-laws, as framed, they have no power to prevent this action, which they consider to be injurious to the sea defences there. I gladly undertake to consider that matter in collaboration with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to see whether there is anything which can be done to ease the position administratively. On this occasion we are not allowed to go into what might be done by legislation, and so I will not say anything more about that at this time.
My Noble Friend contrasted, as I understood it, what he considered to be the insufficiency of our action in offering a 60 per cent. grant to this catchment


board with the greater generosity shown to a relatively rich district in Essex. He seemed to be under the impression that we had handed out £1,000,000 for works in that area. I assure him that that is not by any means the case. What has actually happened is that the Essex Rivers Catchment Board have submitted applications for grant in respect of works the cost of which, if taken in conjunction with works already authorised, amounts to £1,000,000, but, in fact, no grant has yet been offered to the catchment board for these additional works. I ask my Noble Friend to believe that we do try to administer these grants with a strict sense of our responsibility to the public, whose money it is, while at the same time exercising discrimination, weighing up the resources of a locality and the problems which it has to meet out of those resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned the peculiar case of Lowestoft, as he put it. It is not unique. There are other places like it in England, in the sense in which charges fall upon it for sea defences and flood prevention. Its position arises from the financial mechanism of the Act of 1930. The work which Lowestoft does to protect its own sea border from erosion is, as in the case of any other seaside locality, its own charge. There are no grants for sea erosion as such, following the report of the Royal Commission in 1911, which made recommendations to that effect. The other charges arise from the fact that Lowestoft, while being in the county of Suffolk, is within the East Norfolk Rivers Catchment Area, and it was provided in the Act of 1930 that all places inside the catchment area should contribute to the expenses of the area. It so happens in the case of Lowestoft that the administrative county of East Suffolk receives precepts from the East Norfolk Rivers Board and also from the East Suffolk Rivers Board, which covers another part of the

administrative county. That is the position with regard to Lowestoft, and it arises entirely from the financial machinery set up under the Act of 1930.

Mr. Loftus: Is there any other place in England which, in addition to its own burdens, has to pay rates in respect of two separate areas?

Mr. Morrison: Without being categorical, I would tell my hon. Friend that I am informed that Lowestoft is not unique, because there are other places in the same position, but I will gladly look into the matter to see whether that is actually the case.
I can only sum up what I have said by saying that we are administering the Act of 1930, that the catchment board concerned is, like all other catchment boards, a statutory local authority with its own financial system, and that as far as my Department is concerned we are in the position of advising, and cannot in any way compel action to be taken., All we can do is to refuse grants, which is often a slow and bad way of persuading action to be taken locally. In this case we have given as much technical and other advice as we could give to the local authority, and have tried to help them in a very arduous task. As regards the future, I hope that the catchment board will believe that we realise the difficult problem which those sad events have placed before them, and that we are anxious to help them in any way that we reasonably can with advice and, what I think they relish more than advice, with financial assistance.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Four o'Clock, until Tuesday, 26th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.